Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

MV Derbyshire

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. Don Dixon: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving us the opportunity to raise this issue on the Floor of the House this morning.
Many of my hon. Friends and I are annoyed and disgusted at the cavalier way in which the Government have treated the investigation and the MV Derbyshire Family Association—people who lost their loved ones in the tragedy some 16 years ago. I shall come to the details later, but first I pay tribute to the many people and organisations that have kept the issue on the political agenda for many years, including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who has done more work than anyone in the House to keep the matter in the public eye. He has initiated emergency debates under Standing Order No. 20, tabled early-day motions, asked numerous questions, raised the matter in an Adjournment debate and presented a petition. He has been relentless in trying to get at the truth about this terrible disaster, as have other Members of Parliament whose constituents lost their relatives on the Derbyshire, not least my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington).
I also pay tribute to my old comrade, Jim Slater, who was general secretary—later president—of the National Union of Seamen. Jim spent the last years of his life fighting to get at the truth about the Derbyshire. Indeed, I recall sitting one Sunday evening at Littlehaven harbour in South Shields, watching the ships coming into the Tyne—something my wife and I often do on a Sunday night after I have left this place and gone back to civilisation—when Jim came along, taking his youngster for a walk. Within minutes, we were talking about the Derbyshire. Jim always had it on his mind. Unfortunately, that was the last time I spoke to him, as he died shortly afterwards while attending a war veterans' rally in Liverpool.
I also pay tribute to Paul Lambert, chairman of the MV Derbyshire Family Association, who lost his brother on the ship, and to the rest of the association. Those people have fought so hard and shown such patience in their fight for the truth and natural justice for their relatives who perished on the Derbyshire.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I lost two constituents, Peter Taylor and Griffith Wyn Williams, on the Derbyshire. In view of what he was saying about the rights of the

families, is it not high time that they had full representation in any further inquiries and access to any further information that is available, so that their suffering can at last be put to rest?

Mr. Dixon: I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall come to that point later. I appreciate that he has also taken an interest and attended our meetings in the House.
I also pay tribute to the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—formally the National Union of Seamen—which has been involved ever since the sinking; to the International Transport Workers Federation, which located the wreck; and to Dave Ramwell and Tim Madge, authors of the book "A Ship Too Far—The Mystery of the Derbyshire". I would recommend that book to anyone, and I sincerely hope that the Minister has read it.
On 29 January this year, I received a letter from Paul Lambert, chairman of the MV Derbyshire Family Association, in which he informed me that, at a meeting 10 days earlier, he was told by Mr. Frank Wall, representing the Department of Transport, that there would be no nominated experts from the association on the forthcoming return to the wreck of the Derbyshire. Following those representations from Paul Lambert, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport on 6 February, requesting that nominated experts from the MV Derbyshire Family Association be allowed on the forthcoming return to the wreck. I received a reply on 4 April from the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, saying that careful consideration was being given to my request, that he hoped to reach a decision soon and that he would let me have a substantive reply as soon as he had done so.
On 10 June, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping wrote to me, saying:
we have concluded that it would not be appropriate for the Derbyshire Family Association … to be represented on the return expeditions.
In January, an official from the Department of Transport told Paul Lambert that no member of the association would be represented. Six months later, after careful consideration, the Minister confirmed that. Like many other hon. Members who are present today, I do not believe that the Government ever intended to allow the association to be represented. That illustrates the shabby and disgraceful way in which they have treated the association.
Not until the loss of the Kowloon Bridge in 1986 did a formal investigation into the loss of the Derbyshire take place, six years after it sank. Had it not been for the efforts of those I have mentioned and the hon. Members who are here this morning, the Government probably would not have revealed the truth.
Let me give a few details of the tragedy. No doubt other hon. Members will elaborate on them. The Derbyshire was built by Swan Hunter at Haverton Hill, Teesside, in 1976. She was the last of the six Bridge class oil-bulk-ore combination carriers, which were the first of their kind to be built in the United Kingdom. The six ships were the Furness Bridge, later renamed the Marcona Pathfinder and launched in 1971; the Tynebridge, later renamed the East: Bridge and launched in 1972; the English Bridge, later renamed the Kowloon Bridge and launched in 1973; the Sir John Hunter, later renamed Cast Kittiwake and


launched in 1974; the Sir Alexander Glen, launched in 1975; and the Liverpool Bridge, later renamed the Derbyshire, launched in 1976.
Of those six ships, only the first, the Furness Bridge, was built to the original design. Three of them had to undergo repairs at frame 65 to restore them to the original design and make them seaworthy. That left two, the Kowloon Bridge and the Derbyshire. The Derbyshire sank in September 1980, some 200 miles off Japan in the South China sea—amid waves, in a typhoon that she should easily have braved—while carrying iron ore concentrate from Canada to Japan, with the loss of 44 lives. She plunged two miles, so rapidly that there was no time to send a distress signal. There was not even time for an SOS.
The ship was 145 ft wide, the width of a six-lane motorway, and 1,000 ft long, the length of three football pitches. She was twice the size of the Titanic. She was only four years old—three working years old—and she remains the largest ship ever lost from the British register. Forty-four people died on the Derbyshire, of whom 42 were crew—officers and ratings—and two were wives of officers on board.
Despite the loss of so many lives, no formal investigation was carried out. Given such a massive loss of life, such an investigation should have been the norm rather than the exception; but, notwithstanding normal practice, the Minister announced in May 1981 that there was not enough evidence to justify an inquiry, although all the Derbyshire's sister ships had experienced problems.
On 11 March 1982, on a passage from Hamburg to Brazil, the Tynebridge—the second in the six-ship series—encountered a North sea storm, and started to split badly around frame 65. Such was the captain's concern that he arranged for most of the crew to be airlifted to safety. The ship, with a skeleton crew, was towed to Hamburg. Inspection of the ship in dry dock showed that she had not been built to design, and the damage was attributed to the change in the method of connecting the cargo section of the hull to the aft-end engine room section. The region affected was frame 65, which coincided with one of the ship's ribs. Let me explain to those who do not know the construction of ships that a ship's ribs that run horizontally are referred to as longitudinals, while those that run vertically are called frames. The frames are numbered from the aft rather than the forward end: frame 65 is near the aft end.
So alarmed were the surveyors of the damage to the Tynebridge that, unsolicited, they sent out warnings to the owners of similarly built sister ships. Two were given some strengthening treatment in the same year after similar damage was found in embryo form, and those repairs made the ships seaworthy for the first time. If actions speak louder than words, this is what the repairs said. First, the longitudinals—the spinal girders—should not have been terminated at and welded into the transverse bulkhead; they should have carried straight through the bulkhead.
In all my years in the shipbuilding industry—in which I worked from the time when I left school at the age of 14 until I retired from gainful employment and came to the House in 1979—I never worked on a ship on which the longitudinals were constructed in that way. The butts

should have been staggered. When a house is built, the bricks are not placed in a single line; they are staggered to give them strength. The same applies to the longitudinals and frames on a ship. I believe that that is one of the reasons why the ship sank: there was a flaw in the bulkhead. I have no doubt that many of my hon. Friends agree—certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who, like me, has served time as a shipwright. Some of my other hon. Friends who are present come from that dying breed of Labour Members who have not only seen a pair of overalls but actually worn a pair, and it is good to see that they have turned up to discuss this important issue.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: My hon. Friend kindly referred to me as an ex-shipwright. Let me say, as one former shipwright to another, that the fact that the longitudinal ended where it did indicates a distressing design fault. I do not think that that has anything to do with the way in which the ship was built by the lads at the yard.

Mr. Dixon: I agree, and I hope that some of my hon. Friends will elaborate on that. The ships were built to specifications laid down by law, and that is one of the reasons why I believe that there was a certain amount of cover-up over the sinking. The deck should have been at least 30 per cent. thicker, and the metal should have been D and E grade.
A question that has never been answered is this: how do those who claim that the hull of the Derbyshire was up to specification reconcile that claim with the fact that many thousands of pounds needed to be spent on strengthening and repairing that part of the hull on her sister ships? Only one other of those similarly built sister ships was not restored to the intended design; that was the third in the series, originally called the English Bridge and later renamed the Kowloon Bridge.
On 25 November 1986, the Kowloon Bridge, in an abandoned condition, struck Stag rocks, off the southern coast of Ireland, and gradually sank, splitting at frame 65. Following the loss of that ship, early in 1987. it was announced that there would be a formal inquiry into the loss of the Derbyshire. A report was published in 1989, stating:
The Derbyshire was probably overwhelmed by the forces of nature in Typhoon Orchid",
and adding:
the evidence available does not support any firmer conclusion".
I have a letter from Mr. J. F. Ibbotson, leader of the Australian branch of the MV Derbyshire Family Association. He writes:
One of our Group. in command of an Australian registered Bulk carrier and taking the same course and the same cargo to Japan. heard no distress signal from Derbyshire because her end may have come too quick—in seconds.
The same member did not consider the Typhoon to be much different from the 30 or 40 each year which occur in the Typhoon season in which he has made safe passages for many, many years.
So much for the forces of nature.
Many people in the maritime industry believe that that formal investigation was a whitewash. It came about only because of the structural damage to the Kowloon Bridge, which finally embarrassed the Minister into calling the investigation. Some matters were not raised. The history


of cracking throughout the fleet was virtually ignored. Even the evidence from the Kowloon Bridge, which gave rise to the investigation, was ignored.
Crucial witnesses such as Professor Bishop, an expert in ship science, were not called. David Swift, the Lloyd's Register of Shipping surveyor at the shipyard at the time of the "design change", wanted to give evidence, but was prevented from doing so. The wreck commissioner refused to consider reports that pointed to construction failure at frame 65. The "rule of bias" was broken as one of the assessors had already sat on the executive committee of Lloyd's Register of Shipping when its technical arm investigated the loss of the Derbyshire—the register has a vested interest in the outcome of the case. Some members of the MV Derbyshire Family Association were treated disgracefully when giving evidence at the inquiry.
Forty-four lives were lost on the Derbyshire. Many other seafarers' lives have been lost in bulk carrier tragedies and many more are at risk. If the accident had happened in any other mode of transport—in aviation, for instance—all aeroplanes would have been grounded and unlimited money would have been spent to identify and to rectify all the problems, but that is not so in the maritime industry. It seems that seafarers' lives are not counted in the same context as those lost on aeroplanes or trains.
I support and agree with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the MV Derbyshire Family Association, which believe that the second survey should be a joint and open investigation—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)—including representatives of the Ministry of Defence, the association's advisers, and appointed experts of the European Commission, under the control of an independent chairman. That would ensure that all parties accepted the second survey. After all. the association's advisers provided all the technical input for the first and successful wreck survey. It seems that Government Departments, having gleaned information from the association, have slammed the door firmly in its face.
If natural justice is to be seen to be done, the MV Derbyshire Family Association advisers should be included at all stages. Even at this late point, I appeal to the Government to have second thoughts and to allow those representatives to be on the survey.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on securing this debate on the Floor of the House. His comments show the understanding in the House among those who either have worked in the shipbuilding industry or, like myself, were seamen. I first became involved in the MV Derbyshire case in the 1980s, through one of my constituents, who lost her husband in that terrible tragedy. Had there been no MV Derbyshire Family Association, the loss of the Derbyshire would have been long forgotten and none of the important things that have happened since then would have taken place.
I shall concentrate on my right hon. Friend's point about the way in which the MV Derbyshire Family Association has been treated over 16 years. We must remember that the first visit to the site of the Derbyshire disaster took place without the Government's assistance.
It was the association, the people who gathered around it, and people who know the business and come from the maritime world, who took the initiative and, against great odds—some said that it was an impossible task—found the Derbyshire. That was the first breakthrough for the association.
We must understand that, in times of war, when ships are sunk by enemy action, the families of the people involved suffer as much distress as the families of those who lost their lives on the Derbyshire, but they know how and why their brothers, sisters, husbands and fathers died. The Derbyshire families do not know how or why the Derbyshire crew died. Their determination has ensured that the matter has stayed on the agenda for 16 years.
It does the Government no credit to exclude the MV Derbyshire Family Association from the next visit to the wreck. There is no logical argument that convinces me—or any fair-minded person—that it should not be part of the return visit to the wreck site. It has assisted and constantly argued the case. It found the wreck, the first great breakthrough.
About two or three weeks ago, I attended a meeting in London. Up to that time, the MV Derbyshire Family Association was firmly of the view that it would be part of the team to visit the wreck. There was no reason to think otherwise. At that meeting, the bombshell was dropped that the association was not to be included. The view that that is an absolute scandal is shared across the political parties in the House. Those families have been tortured for the past 16 years. We must understand that only the bonding of those people has led to the matter staying on the agenda.
The ship was not rusted up or an old tramp steamer. It was built to a modern design, with all the technology available to man. A big question mark hangs over not just the Derbyshire, but bulk carriers in general. As my right hon. Friend said, that is why the issue goes far beyond the MV Derbyshire Family Association and the United Kingdom. Throughout the world, there is concern about bulk carriers. People who have lost relations on those ships are not satisfied. The Government have a clear responsibility to open the door for the families to ensure that nothing is hidden. The Government should have nothing to hide, but there is a suspicion, which is founded on fact, that decisions have been taken to exclude the families from the next visit.
As my right hon. Friend said, I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will reconsider the position. Only yesterday, in an another place, Lord Dean of Beswick and Lord Clinton-Davis raised the matter again with the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, who will still not concede the point that the MV Derbyshire Family Association should be represented at the next visit to the wreck.
I hope that the House will recognise that this is no longer a single Member echoing the wishes and desires of the MV Derbyshire Family Association, but a cross-party matter. Between 60 and 70 Members of Parliament have signed a motion formally supporting the association. That support will be ever-growing in the other place and in this House.
The issue will not go away. The association will ensure that it does not. It is seeking compassion from a Government who apparently have no compassion. I hope today that the Minister will use his good offices to ensure


that the House's opinions are passed on to the decision makers who have excluded the association, and that justice will be seen to be done by including it in the return trip.

Mr. Matthew Banks: I am pleased to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this important Adjournment debate. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) for persevering with his colleagues in seeking to be successful in the ballot for this debate. I am conscious of the fact that, because of his responsibility as a former deputy Chief Whip, the House has not had the pleasure of listening to contributions from the right hon. Gentleman. Towards the end of this Parliament, I am sorry only that we have had that particular pleasure now, on such a deeply upsetting subject.
There is broad agreement across the House on a variety of aspects concerning the Derbyshire, but I shall draw attention to one slight difference of emphasis. I agree with the right hon. Member for Jarrow that he and a number of his colleagues are a dying breed. I do not think that there are many shipwrights on Conservative Benches, but I am conscious of the right hon. Gentleman's point. I remember the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) as a tour de force and one that I shall remember for a long time.

Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Banks: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I do not intend to make a long contribution. As I know that the hon. Gentleman also wants to make a speech, and to be fair to other Opposition Members who wish to do so, I would prefer to make progress.
I have always been sympathetic to the MV Derbyshire Family Association's 16-year campaign. Its commitment and that of the RMT and the International Transport Workers Federation accurately to identify the causes of the sinking of the Derbyshire on 9/10 September 1980 has been total. No matter what caused the vessel to sink, the DFA's claim for compensation is much more understandable and deserving than the multifarious and cynical grievances that squeeze public finances these days.
Any Government must act responsibly even in the most wretched circumstances. As all the inquiries and reports have never dispelled doubts about structural failure, understandably Opposition Members, some of my hon. Friends and, to some extent, myself have consistently raised the spectre of a cover-up on behalf of the taxpayer since the privatisation of Swan Hunter, as the reason for compensation not being paid for the loss of the Derbyshire's crew. The DFA, perhaps naturally, has followed the lead of Opposition spokesmen in making such accusations, but I believe that some of them are groundless.
The Department of Trade and Industry completed a preliminary inquiry into the loss of the ship in November 1980, but the inspector concluded that, in the absence of any direct evidence, he could not draw any firm

conclusions as to the cause of the vessel's loss. It was subsequently decided that a formal inquiry would not be held, because a court could not reasonably be expected to establish the cause of the casualty.
Replying to a parliamentary question in 1986, the then Secretary of State for Transport, the late Nicholas Ridley, stated:
While I have every sympathy with those whose relatives were lost with the Derbyshire I have concluded that a formal investigation, conducted some five-and-a-half years after the loss of the vessel, is not likely to produce any significant additional evidence about the cause of her loss, beyond what is contained in the Department's report. I do not therefore propose to order one."— [Official Report,21 March 1986; Vol. 94, c. 315.]
The Department's report into the circumstances attending the loss of the MV Derbyshire stated:
in the last analysis the cause of the loss of the Derbyshire is and will almost certainly remain a matter of speculation.
However, following the acknowledgement of structural problems with the Derbyshire's sister ship, Kowloon Bridge, after its break-up off the south-west coast of the island of Ireland, the then Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), announced on 12 December 1986 the establishment of a formal inquiry, while pointing out that the report of the damage suffered by the Kowloon Bridge concluded
that there was no evidence of design defects or of structural failures of the kind that were suggested might have been the cause of the loss of the Derbyshire.—[Official Report. 25 November 1986: Vol. 106, c. 142.]
The formal investigation was concluded on 10 March the following year and confirmed my hon. Friend's prognosis—although doubt still remained about possible structural failure. The report's main conclusion was:
The Derbyshire was probably overwhelmed by the forces of nature in Typhoon Orchid, possibly after getting beam-on to wind and sea, off Okinawa in the darkness of the night of 9/10th September 1980, with the loss of 44 lives.
The three main recommendations of the court dealing with maritime searches, tropical storm guidance and water drainage from cargoes were satisfactorily dealt with by the then Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), who is in his place on the Front Bench. Despite tangible new evidence presented three years later, in 1990, by the hon. Member for Garston, the Brunel university paper and film of the Kowloon Bridge wreckage, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), accepted advice that the new evidence was apparently not tangible enough.
The RMT—with which I have the occasional disagreement—to its credit, and the International Transport Workers Federation found the funds to finance a marine search for the Derbyshire and succeeded in locating it two and a half miles beneath the South China sea, near a speck of an island called South Daitoo, 1,000 miles south-east of Japan. However, sonar and video material of the Derbyshire's resting place was judged inconclusive by the chief inspector of marine accidents.
I hope that any lingering suspicions about the Government's motives can be put to rest, not only because of the appointment of Lord Donaldson to initiate an assessment but because of their acceptance of his key conclusions and a return expedition. Successive Secretaries of State for Transport have acted honourably


throughout this long-running saga, always on the advice of advisers. Even Opposition Members would have need of advisers if ever they took office—although one or two of them do their best at times to pretend in a cack-handed manner that they know it all.
The Government's actions have shown that opportunities have been given to overturn the original verdict and that the decisions not to do so were taken fairly. As Lord Donaldson said in his assessment:
The United Kingdom cannot, in my judgement, be criticised for having failed to mount an expedition to find the wreck of the Derbyshire, hearing in mind the cost and the slim chance of success. However, the situation has been transformed by the discovery of the bow section and the opportunity which is now presented of making a truly scientific study of that section, of searching for and possibly finding and examining the stern section, and of a general study of the wreck site, albeit of a clearly defined nature.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues on the need to keep the return expedition entirely independent, which means—regrettably—that DFA representatives might have to be excluded. Their attendance would be as prejudicial to the gathering of evidence as sending a representative of Swan Hunter or the Treasury. I want a satisfactory resolution to the case as soon as possible, which means leaving as little to fortune as possible.
In an exchange in the other place last week, Lord Clinton-Davis, the Opposition's transport spokesman, pointed out the difference between the more profound motives of the DFA in comparison to the opposing interests of the ship's owners and insurers and of the cargo owners. The Government should not approach the matter in that light—no hostages to fortune is the mindset that the Government must adopt if the case is to be resolved as quickly and as fairly as possible. Lord Donaldson remarked that this really must be the last re-examination of the wreck.
Over the past 15 years, 149 bulk carriers have been lost at sea, with the loss of 1,144 lives. Nine of them were lost in 1994, with 123 lives lost that year. No major design modifications have resulted, which is unacceptable. As a member of the Select Committee on Transport, which has taken an interest in the matter—particularly, in this Parliament, in relation to the survivability of roll on/roll off ferries-I shall be interested in the evidence that returns with the expedition concerning the design of long, heavy ships—even if one bears in mind the fact that the Derbyshire was double-skinned and the relative safety of hatch covers on bulk carriers. Some people might say that the appalling record of bulk carriers in terms of losses is largely attributable to most of them being single-skinned and aging.
I hope that the independent expedition will be helpful to members of the International Maritime Organisation's maritime safety committee, which I hope will retain its interest in bulk carrier safety after the expedition has ended and despite the cessation of the correspondence group's activities, particularly concerning the 1966 international low-line convention.
Lord Donaldson wrote in his independent assessment:
Under Article 94 of International Law of the Sea Convention, which in this respect is tacitly accepted as binding on the United Kingdom. flag states are under an obligation to investigate and report on the loss of vessels flying their flag. The purpose of this obligation is to ensure that lessons learnt become available to the whole international maritime community. If this obligation were

taken seriously by all, or even most, flag states there would be a mass of information available on bulk carrier losses. Sadly there is not.
The United Kingdom is no longer a major flag state, but we remain a world leader in the struggle to achieve safety at sea. The Select Committee on Transport has recognised the leading role that the United Kingdom has taken in pressing for improvements in safety standards. I trust that the Government will continue in that role.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I understand that the winding-up speeches will begin at 10.30 am. Four hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye to speak in the 20 minutes before then.

Mr. Bill Etherington: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on being so succinct in his summary of the subject of this debate. I also appreciate the efforts made by my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who have pressed this matter from the outset—long before I was elected as a Member of Parliament—and have kept it alive. I also echo the tribute paid to Jim Slater, who was conscientious and sincere in trying to get a good deal for his members and their families.
The former National Union of Seamen and the International Transport Workers Federation have accomplished something that the Government have failed to do. It is quite reprehensible that the Department of Transport has had to be dragged every inch of the way. This debate has been made possible only because of the endeavours of people who accomplished what the Department of Trade and Industry and its inspectors thought was impossible. Paul Lambert, chairman of the MV Derbyshire Family Association, has also been a stalwart in this matter.
I have two constituents who lost people on the Derbyshire, and I hope that they realise—as I hope that the DTI and Ministers realise—that this matter will not go away. The fact that 16 years have elapsed makes no difference. The matter must be pursued until a satisfactory conclusion is reached, regardless of what that conclusion might be.
It is interesting to note that when the Derbyshire was built in 1976 it was described as an "innovative design". One of the most important aspects when dealing with a new design is to ensure that it is built absolutely and entirely to specification. We have evidence that these ships were not built to specification. Even worse, perhaps, is the strange disappearance of the ships' plans made by Swan Hunter's naval architects. The plans should have been registered with Lloyd's, but they were never presented there and no one has had sight of them since. On the balance of probability, it is reasonable to assume that the Derbyshire was not built to specification, and that that was a paramount factor in what happened later. Apparently the MV Furness Bridge complied with the specifications, but it was the only one that did.
The failure to conduct a formal investigation in 1980 shows that the Government do not rate the loss of 44 lives very highly. It is a matter of fact and of history that


seafarers' lives have always been relatively cheap, not only in this country but all over the world. They receive inadequate compensation and often work in appalling conditions for some of the worst employers the world has ever seen.
There has been much talk about frame 65. My right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow mentioned that the longitudi-nals should have staggered joints. He used the analogy of building with bricks. To take the analogy a little further, when one builds a house one does not build four separate walls and then join them at the corners with cement. One interlocks them, for strength. If one built a house with one brick on top of another, there is automatically a line of stress that is almost guaranteed to fail.
It is also interesting to note that the shipbuilder had to send out warnings to the owners. Again on the balance of probability, that shows that the design was inadequate and that the ships had not been built properly. That is no reflection on those who worked in the yards. For those who do not know, I should say that shipwrights and shipyard workers work to drawings. If the foreman is satisfied with how the drawing is executed, that is how the job is done.
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) for sending me a copy of the book, "A Ship Too Far". I read it with great interest and learned much from it. It is one of the best books I have read, and I think that everyone should read it. All credit is due to those who wrote it.
The inquiry was appalling. Although we hear so much about open government these days, knowledgeable people—naval architects and others with great knowledge of shipbuilding and the effects of storms on ships at sea—were not allowed to give evidence as they wished. Such proceedings make an inquiry no more than a charade, and completely humiliate those trying to present their case.
It is deplorable that the most anti-union Government in the western world have had to rely on the trade union movement to further this investigation. That is an appalling indictment. I hope that not only the MV Derbyshire Family Association but everyone in Britain will take note of the way in which the Government have acted on this issue.
Hon. Members have mentioned Brunel university's investigation and the photographic evidence produced by the International Transport Workers Federation. That evidence should be seen by all hon. Members. One significant fact shown in the photographic evidence is that the load of iron ore reached the sea bed before the parts of the ship's structure. I always thought that steel was heavier than iron ore. I leave hon. Members to decide for themselves the implications of that, but it tells me—again on the balance of probability—that the ship broke up at or near the surface.
I ask the Minister to make resources available so that parts of the ship's structure can be raised from the sea bed. It can be done. We can land men on the moon. We have space probes. We live in an era in which we have the technology to accomplish that task; all that is required is the political will. I believe that the Government owe such an investigation to the 44 citizens of this country who perished. It is important for the families to be allowed, once and for all, to have some peace of mind

and some rest. They have had 16 years of bashing against a brick wall with no worthwhile response from the Government. It is time to put that right.
It must not be forgotten that another ship, within a very short distance of the Derbyshire, managed to get through the "storm of all storms"—which we are now told was only an average storm for that part of the world. That should signify something.
There has been a catalogue of mistakes and a lack of political will to carry out investigations. It has been a shameful incident. Such conduct would be shameful for any Government—regardless of which country they governed or which party was in power—after such an incident.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) for raising this matter. He represents the constituency in which I was born, and I have many happy memories of that area.
I also wish to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman publicly for the work that he did on the Committee of Selection, where he served with great distinction. Last Wednesday, we had a rather ill-tempered debate in which the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) made some very unpleasant remarks about the Committee, which shows their wilful ignorance. If every Committee worked as amicably as the Committee of Selection works, the House would be a happier place. During the time he was on that Committee, he was always completely fair and always kept his word. I am grateful to him.
I became involved in this matter because of a constituent called Captain Dave Ramwell, who has made the Derbyshire a cause celebre. He has spent I know not how many days and weeks delving into the matter and finding out an enormous amount of information. He deserves praise for his efforts. His work has always been painstaking, and whenever he has written to me he has been extremely polite. I pay tribute to him because, but for his work, much of the information that has been gleaned about the incident would not have come to light.
The Derbyshire sank without trace way back in 1980 near Okinawa. In 1982, the sister ship—the Tyne Bridge—started to crack during a storm in the North sea. The Tyne Bridge sailed under the Italian flag and went to Hamburg, where it was inspected by an Italian surveyor who decided that the damage was caused by the method of construction at frame 65, a point to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) referred. I understand that Lloyd's Register of Shipping agreed with the Italian surveyor's decision and that the owners were warned about the difficulties that such ships, faced. At that time it also said that, of the four sister ships, only the first to be built—the Furness Bridge—had been built correctly. That brings me up to date and to the main thrust of my comments.
We are now to have the first forensic investigation of a ship that had hitherto disappeared. I believe that the information obtained must be disseminated as widely as possible. In this respect, I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North.

Mr. Robert Atkins: In view of the time available, I will make a short intervention rather than a


speech. I simply wish to be associated with the campaign that my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and his colleagues are waging. I, too, have a constituent who lost a relative on the Derbyshire and I take a continuing interest in the matter. I wish to record my appreciation of all those who have been leading the fight for the investigation and to ensure that the campaign continues because the issue will not go away.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's intervention.
The MV Derbyshire Family Association wants its representative involved. The Department of Transport promised that the association would be kept informed of all developments. I attended an all-party meeting in the House on 30 April this year at which we were told that no decision had been made as to whether the DFA would be represented. We were also told that no decision had been taken on the direction that the investigation would take. I think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) tabled a written question and received an answer on 7 May which confirmed that position.

Mr. Loyden: indicated assent

Sir Fergus Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman confirms what I have said. What I find difficult to understand is that, on 10 May, a seminar was held during which a man called Professor Faulkner let the cat out of the bag and said that things were not quite as we had been told.
I shall conclude my remarks shortly because I know that the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) is desperate to make a contribution to the debate, but I will first quote briefly from the most recent letter that I have had from my constituent, Captain Ramwell. He writes:
The Viscount"—
Viscount Goschen, Minister for Aviation and Shipping—
did not explain to the DFA his reasons for denying their representative a presence on the expedition: he merely informed Paul Lambert of the decision. There were so called reasons given, but they were cosmetic.
If DOT appointed assessors are not balanced by a DFA assessor then the maritime world will not be able to place confidence in that part of any report that falls under the DOT. This is not to reflect adversely on the DOT appointed assessors; it is to say that the Rule of Bias—as at the Formal Investigation—is being broken.
The first visit was backed by the families' union representatives … Far from that being a drawback, it precipitated the re-investigation about to take place.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister has listened to the pleas made by right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House because members of the DFA feel very aggrieved at what has happened.

Mr. Frank Cook: This is the first contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) since he was appointed to the Privy Council. I congratulate him on that elevation, and on being successful in securing this debate.
I have about 100 pages of notes on this subject. It is a constituency interest, as the Derbyshire was built in my constituency. I must say that it was built despite the work force's protestations that the standards of workmanship

imposed on them by management were unacceptable. The Lloyd's surveyor was also moved on because he so consistently and persistently pointed to the technical defects highlighted by my colleagues today. I agree with everything that my colleagues have said and with every tribute that they have paid. To repeat their comments would simply waste time and cut short the time available to me, so I shall concentrate on the facts that others have perhaps not been able to put together.
In this context, I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) because the inconsistencies that he pointed out provide a good framework in which to place my comments. The hon. Gentleman said that he is an active member of the Select Committee on Transport. In the post this morning I received a copy of Which?, a publication not renowned for a lack of reliability. It states on its front cover, "Not again! When disaster strikes, why are the safety lessons so often ignored?" The accompanying article has the sub-heading, "Too little is done after a public transport disaster to make sure the same thing can't happen again". While the hon. Gentleman might think that the Select Committee is doing a good job, Which? has different ideas. I recommend that he read it.
The hon. Member for Southport highlighted other inconsistencies which deserve further illumination. First, the Donaldson report stated that the views taken of the debris field on the ocean bed were inconclusive. The natural response to that is that they deserve a better and closer examination. Secondly, however, Lord Donaldson said that this must be the last visit to the debris field; 'in other words, we had better make sure that this investigation is a good one.
I am sorry to labour the point about the MV Derbyshire Family Association's technical advisers, but who found the wreck? It was the technical advisers funded by the unions. Despite protestations to the effect that the Government had made various efforts in this respect, nothing was done other than to go through the motions of an investigation. Indeed, it is on record that informed commentators such as, for example, the Lloyd's surveyor were debarred from giving evidence. They were not invited to do so, despite their consistent appeals to be heard. I suggest that that is a clear indication that the pursuit of the truth was less than energetic.
Photographs of wreckage—specifically a lifeboat—were taken by a passing Japanese tanker. The photographs were then transferred to the owners of the Derbyshire, Bibby Line. Astonishingly, they were then returned to Japan and cannot be found. However, it has been established that the photographs showed clearly that the damage to the lifeboat was consistent with its having been ripped from its davits—in other words, due to a sudden submersion. Why did the photographs go missing? Why are the drawings not available? Why are the technical advisers not being allowed to accompany the expedition to ensure that it is conclusive and exhaustive and that the people who had the nous and the technical know-how to find the wreck in the first place have the opportunity to comment on behalf of the families now?
The Government say that they want to keep the survey independent. They say that the Department of Transport, the Marine Safety Agency and the marine accident investigation branch will also not be represented, creating the perception that it is a completely independent expedition. However, the Marine Safety Agency and the marine accident investigation branch are merely divisions


of the Department of Transport, and the Department of Transport is certainly being represented as it is the Department that has appointed the two assessors and is paying them.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) referred to Professor Faulkner, who was one of the two principal advisers to the Donaldson inquiry. He will be a member of the survey and he has been a principal spokesman. I like Professor Faulkner, but in all my work on the issue, I have been aided by a constituent, Gordon Finlayson, who served as an engineering officer on the Kowloon Bridge and who experienced some of the problems. He and I have written numerous letters, two of which elicited this comment from Professor Faulkner:
Both letters show a refreshing breadth of objectivity—
I am pleased about that—
compared with what I now regard as depressingly closed minds from the DFA advisers".
It was not depressingly closed minds that set about finding the wreckage field. It was not depressingly closed minds that were persistent enough to take photographs of the wreckage and to bring them back to prove that they were right. Yet now, when we are to have a conclusive, exhaustive and final examination, those minds are suddenly described as depressingly closed.
The Department of Transport has been condemned for its lack of vigilance over the incident. Many vessels have been lost and hundreds of lives have been wasted, quite apart from capitalist concerns such as lost cargo and insurance pay-outs. I appeal to the Minister, who is normally a most reasonable man—I do not say that facetiously—to have second thoughts on this occasion. For God's sake, let him do the decent thing and allow at least one technical adviser to go to the site who knows what has happened and what we may find.

Mr. Graham Allen: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) for cutting his remarks short. I will do the same to allow the Minister to have 15 to 20 minutes in which to reply, because we wish to hear from him.
This debate shows the House at its best and its worst. It shows it at its best because the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) has persistently been raised on the Floor, through the use of every possible parliamentary device, by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), whose work is an example to us all of the way in which a constituency Member should carry out his job—with great tenacity, using every device in the House.
The debate also shows our weakness, in that Parliament has been unable seriously to hold the Government to account over the past 16 years in order to get a serious and full investigation into what really happened to the Derbyshire. People who care about our Parliament, regardless of party, should pay close heed to that point. Let us get it right this time and let us ensure that in future Parliament has the teeth to ensure that such incidents are investigated thoroughly and quickly, even if the Executive choose to handle the matter differently.
It is unacceptable that, after 16 years, we still have not had a proper and full investigation of the Derbyshire incident. That has not only let down the families of those concerned, but has meant that the crucial issue of bulk carrier safety has not been raised. It was only when I assumed this brief for the Labour party six months ago that I realised the full horror of the safety record of bulk carriers.
One estimate is that a large bulk carrier has been lost every month since 1971. That is an incredible figure. More than 2,000 lives have been lost. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow said, if such an accident happened at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted or one of our regional airports, there would be an outcry. The Government would be brought to book at the Dispatch Box day after day until an answer was found. Yet the loss of one bulk carrier a month is regarded as something that we can pass over relatively quickly.

Mr. Frank Cook: Many are lost without trace.

Mr. Allen: As my hon. Friend says, many bulk carriers have disappeared without trace. Last year, six bulk carriers and 84 lives were lost. Some 118 bulk carriers have been lost in the past six years, with 587 lives lost. We can rattle off statistics, but what they prove is that life is cheap at sea. I could give many more examples, but I am keen to move on so that the Minister has time to reply.
We need to analyse what happened to the Derbyshire and we need to ensure that the wreck is thoroughly examined. In addition, there is the wider question of the British merchant fleet, which is now in a parlous state. We are about to lose critical mass unless we ensure that we produce ships that are absolutely safe and of very high quality. If we do not, we shall not be able to compete with the Filipino crews and the foreign-registered vessels. It is essential that we recapture our reputation for high quality and high safety. That will be to the benefit of seafarers, masters and ship owners in this country, as well as to the benefit of the invisible earnings from ship broking and insurance about which we hear so much.

Mr. Winston Churchill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Allen: No. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to press on, because I must give the Minister some time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
The figures that I have given are for the years after the regulations were tightened and after the International Maritime Organisation increased its efforts to ensure that ships were safer. The figures for the years before the loss of the Derbyshire are probably a lot worse than those that I have given today.
It is a scandal that the dependants of the seafarers who died were not on the list of the named parties. It was only after NUMAST—the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers—made an official application to the wreck commissioner that the families were finally able to contribute to the proceedings. Even then, the cost of representation for families and dependants had to be met by the two UK maritime trade unions, despite their substantial contribution to the investigation and despite the fact that solving the mystery of the MV Derbyshire was clearly in the public interest. Why was representation funded from public sources for


those associated with the King's Cross fire, the Piper Alpha disaster and the Clapham rail crash, but not for those involved in the tragedy of the MV Derbyshire?
Colleagues on both sides of the House have pointed out the weaknesses of the assorted investigations that have taken place since the tragedy. I will not list them again. It took an expedition organised by the MV Derbyshire Family Association, with funding from the International Transport Workers Federation, to find the wreck at a depth of 4,000 m. The expedition used the company that found the Titanic and the Bismarck. There are almost echoes of a tragic film script in going to such lengths to try to get to the truth.
Last year, Lord Donaldson reported on structural reliability. He said that it was a "realistic possibility" that design faults had led to a fracture at bulkhead 65—the very point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow. We now know that a further expedition will visit the site later this month as reconnaissance, and that a fuller investigation will take place next year.
One or two colleagues referred to insurance. Insurance practices should deter poor maintenance of ships by, for example, penalising builders or owners for malpractice. I hope that the Minister will make it clear what further steps to tackle poor standards he will urge, in conjunction with responsible ship owners and insurance companies, at Euro-pean Union and International Labour Organisation level.
The vessels were built by the private owners of Swan Hunter, but the liability is consequent upon Government and Lloyd's. If the Derbyshire families make a breakthrough and the Government and Lloyd's become liable, how will that affect the dozens—indeed, hundreds—of bulk carrier losses since 1971? That may provide a clue to why the Government have dodged and edged and not been clear, open and honest about what happened to the Derbyshire. When big money is at stake, it seems that lives are cheap, but insurance is expensive.
Finally, I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions. I hope that he will answer them today. If he cannot, perhaps he will do us the courtesy of writing to hon. Members. Why does the Minister continue to refuse access to the remaining documents held by his Department relating to the Derbyshire when there should have been full disclosure of the documents for the Government inquiries in 1987 and 1988? Lord Donaldson was given access to those documents, but the MV Derbyshire families were refused. Approved drawings of the construction of frame 65 would be crucial in any normal legal proceedings. Why has the Department of Transport never insisted on such plans being produced? Did they go missing from the original source, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North suggested?
The Department of Transport claimed that the 1985 draft report into the loss became the bland 1986 version in the light of comments received and further information that came to light. Why will the Department not reveal the nature of that information and those comments? The MV Derbyshire Family Association released all the information that it has on the case, including evidence recovered from the wreck.
Why were there no investigations of the shipyard that built the MV Derbyshire and her sister ships—in respect of quality control, material and standards of workmanship—to determine whether she was sound when launched? If they really believed that the Derbyshire was

structurally sound, why did the builders finally warn owners of similar vessels of the dangers? Why did they warn the Liberian flag state of the potential failure of the World Pathfinder—a renamed sister ship—at frame 65?
I emphasise the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House that representatives of the families should be involved in any further investigations. They are not from Lloyd's or the shipowners. They will not be strong-arming officers in the Department of Transport. They need to be involved for fundamental emotional reasons. It is important for them to find out the truth, not to screw compensation or insurance payments out of the Government.
I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the cogent, eloquent and experienced voices that have been raised on both sides of the House. Although I have a number of further queries for the Minister, I shall not take up any more time. We need to hear from him, as do the MV Derbyshire families. He can rest assured that, weak as we are in holding Government to account, if we fail to get an adequate response hon. Members who are here today will continue to raise the matter in the House until our concerns are satisfied.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on his recent elevation to the Privy Council, which has caused great pleasure among hon. Members on both sides of the House, and on securing this morning's important debate. In the 16 minutes left to me, I may not be able to do justice to all the points that have been made. That is a matter of great regret and deep frustration, as a number of serious points have been made and some important matters need to be put on the record on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my noble Friend Lord Goschen, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping.
The right hon.Gentleman spoke about the Government revealing the truth about the Derbyshire as if the Government were aware of the truth, but did not want it to be known and were unwilling to allow it to be disseminated. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) suggested that it was part of the Government's intention to conceal liabilities that might otherwise accrue to their fat-cat friends in Lloyd's. I completely reject any such assertion.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and his predecessors who have dealt with the matter over the years entirely share the ambition of right hon. and hon. Members to determine, if at all possible, the reasons for the loss of the Derbyshire, not least so that lives may be saved in future.
Reference has been made to the number of bulk carrier accidents. Such accidents are a tragic reality. I should make it quite clear at the outset that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping and all those Ministers who have dealt with the matter, which includes me, share a sense of urgency and a strong ambition that the matter should be exposed as much as possible.
I am extremely mindful of the concerns of the MV Derbyshire Family Association, to whom my right hon. Friend and I wish to express our heartfelt and deepest sympathy. We know that a wider public share those


concerns. I pay tribute to the long-running campaign of the DFA. Its perseverance has ensured that investigations into the ship's loss have progressed this far and I commend it heartily for that.
Let me deal first with the length of time that it has taken to mount an expedition, because the Government have been accused of a reluctance to carry out a detailed investigation. I do not agree with that assertion. At the time of the loss, in the absence of any material evidence about the cause, it was thought that a formal investigation would serve no useful purpose. The Department commissioned extensive research into the structural design of the ship and investigated reports of defects in sister ships. Those reports have been published.
There is a clear rationale for the difference between the draft report and the final report. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North invited me to write to him. In view of the concerns that hon. Members have expressed, I shall take up that invitation, but I am quite clear that no sinister implication can be drawn from the fact that the interim and final reports reached differing conclusions.
Following the loss of the Kowloon Bridge in 1986, a formal investigation was set up into the earlier loss. That formal investigation—an independent, wide-ranging public inquiry—reported in January 1989 and found that the evidence available supported no firmer conclusion than, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) said, the Derbyshire was probably overwhelmed by the forces of nature in Typhoon Orchid. No doubt that comment will be familiar to the right hon. Member for Jarrow.
In 1990, at the request of the then Secretary of State, two items of new evidence were considered. The first was the research paper by Professor Bishop that attempted to demonstrate that the Derbyshire fractured at frame 65, and the second was underwater film of the Kowloon Bridge, which purportedly revealed a fracture at frame 65. Both those items were examined by the marine accident investigation branch.
In March 1991, the chief inspector of marine accidents advised the Secretary of State that the material did not constitute new and important evidence and did not warrant the reopening of the formal investigation, but that position was transformed by the success of the International Transport Workers Federation expedition in 1994, which located the wreck. That gave a new impetus to the real possibility of discovering the cause of the loss of the vessel.
In March 1995, therefore, the then Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, appointed Lord Donaldson to carry out an independent assessment with the following terms of reference: first, to assess what further work would be needed to learn more about and, if possible, make a judgment about the cause of the loss of the Derbyshire; secondly, in respect of each option for further work, to assess the probability that the cause can be determined with reasonable confidence—if it cannot, we shall have to consider whether it is a prudent exercise to undertake; thirdly, to assess the costs likely to be incurred for each option; and, fourthly, to investigate what benefit to ship safety would be secured if the cause of the loss of the Derbyshire, or better understanding of it, were established and whether that would justify the likely costs involved.
In his report, Lord Donaldson made a clear recommendation in favour of
a second, extended and last examination of the wreck".
He also concluded that although such an examination might cost about £2 million, it would be fully justified in the light of the potential benefits to ship safety. Importantly, he pointed out that the Department cannot be criticised for not having mounted a return expedition, bearing in mind
the cost and slim chances of success".
As the House knows, we accepted Lord Donaldson's recommendation to carry out a further re-examination, and in view of the potential wider benefits to ship safety, the European Commission is sharing the cost with us. We announced on 3 June that the return expedition would be carried out in two phases. The first phase, which will be an initial and more detailed photographic survey than was possible during the 1994 ITWF expedition, is expected to take place later this month, and the second phase, the main expedition, will be carried out in early 1997. Oceaneering Technologies has been appointed to carry out the first phase. Its bid was the best technically of those we received, and it will use an advanced remote-operated vehicle.
Officers from the Admiralty salvage office of the Ministry of Defence have been appointed to co-ordinate and manage the expedition, acting on the advice of the independent technical assessors. I have every confidence in their ability. Dr. Remo Torchio, the EU assessor, Professor Douglas Faulkner and Robin Williams, the United Kingdom assessors, Morgyn Davies and James Ward from the MOD and salvage officers and project managers will be on board the phase 1 survey vessel. I emphasise that officials of the Department of Transport, the Marine Safety Agency and the marine accident investigation branch will not be on board. We have an unique opportunity to make a truly scientific study of the wreckage site and especially to search for and possibly find the ship's stern.
I am aware that, since our announcement to undertake the return expedition, the DFA has campaigned for full—as it puts it—"hands on" involvement and claims not to have been consulted about the arrangements for the return expeditions. It also claims that the expedition cannot be objective and impartial if it is not represented on it. I must differ with those assertions.
We welcome the DFA's involvement and participation in planning the return. It has been invited by the assessors to comment and put its views on a number of occasions. For instance, at the Royal Institute of Naval Architects colloquium on 15 March, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) referred, the assessors invited those present, including the chairman of the DFA. to submit their views. The assessors have held discussions with the DFA's advisers and have continued to stress that they welcome comments and contributions from any party on the conduct of the return expeditions. I assure the House that the technical assessors have been, and remain, happy to discuss matters with the DFA and other interested parties at any time.
We have given sympathetic consideration to the request from the DFA that it should be represented on or have some control over the return to the ship, but have concluded that that would not be appropriate. The association is one of a number of parties with an interest in the outcome of the


return expedition. This is the most important point that I want to get across: for one of the parties but not others, such as British Shipbuilders, Lloyd's Register of Shipping or Bibby's, to be represented on the return expedition could lead to suggestions that the findings lacked balance or objectivity and should be challenged.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North said that if, for example, Lloyd's was found to be at fault in some way, its liabilities might be great. He said that that is why the Department has in some mysterious way colluded with Lloyd's to hide information. That is nonsense. Much more important, the hon. Gentleman must accept that, on that basis, if the DFA were allowed to attend on the return but not the other parties involved, such as British Shipbuilders, Lloyd's Register and Bibby's, the balance and the objectivity of the exercise would genuinely be compromised.
It has been suggested that we allow a DFA observer on the return expedition. I believe that it is in its best interests not to be on board the return expeditions. In order to satisfy a formal investigation and/or to mount any international safety initiatives, it is absolutely essential that the results of the evidence gathered are seen as impartial, objective and thorough. To have the DFA represented would lead to challenges that the return expedition was partial, lacked objectivity and was undertaken with a specific purpose in mind. The same objections would of course apply to sending a nominated representatives.

Mr. Loyden: rose—

Mr. Norris: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has prosecuted this case with assiduity. I hope that he will be brief.

Mr. Loyden: Have any of the organisations that will be on the return voyage to the wreck voiced any objection to the DFA being part of the team?

Mr. Norris: My understanding is that British Shipbuilders has indeed indicated its concern at allowing a DFA representative on board. I do not want to offer the DFA technical or legal advice, but I really think that those who clamour for a DFA representative on the ship should be aware of the extent to which the integrity of the expedition could be questioned if a representative of the DFA were allowed on the vessel but other interested parties were not. If that were allowed, the implications for the families of those on the Derbyshire—the DFA itself—would be very serious. The Department has no interest whatever in allowing information to be concealed from the DFA or anyone else. The manner in which the call for attendance has been made is simply misguided, and for very important reasons.

Mr. Frank Cook: Is it not a basic tenet of this country that for justice to be done it must be seen to be done? Would it not therefore make sense to have representatives of all

interested parties on the vessel so that they can see that their interests are being fully served? If none of them is allowed on board, they will not know whether they are or not.

Mr. Norris: It is clear that there are only two possibilities. One is that none of the representatives be allowed to be included, and the other is that all be allowed. I do not want to speculate on that because I do not have time to do so and it would not be appropriate. There is no question whatever about the integrity of the independent assessors, or about the integrity or impartiality of the European Union assessor. There is no question whatever of those assessors being compromised by the presence on the vessel of officials of the Department of Transport or the MAIB.
In such circumstances, attendance of a representative of the DFA, unaccompanied by representatives of all other parties who may have a substantial and direct interest in the investigation's outcome, would be prejudicial to the prospects of the DFA and its interests. If the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) wants to pursue the notion that, somehow, all parties should be represented, I am sure that he will do so. I stress that the representation is in the interests of all concerned.
There have also been calls for media representation and direct transmission equipment on board. I assure the House that all interested parties will be given access to the raw data that are retrieved, but direct satellite links or other media involvement would be wholly inappropriate. The media will not be represented on phase 1. The expedition will simply be concerned with gathering photographic evidence. A final decision will be taken nearer the time on whether the media will be included in phase 2,
In the minute that remains, I should make it quite clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who I know took a great personal interest in the matter and whose decision it was to call on Lord Donaldson to examine the prospects of this further inquiry, and my noble Friend Lord Goschen have all made it absolutely clear that their interest, like mine, is in ensuring that, if there is anything to be learned from the wreck of the Derbyshire, it is learned in the interests of those who carry out their business in the great waters of the oceans and whose lives we all have a duty to protect.
I know that we will never be able to satisfy all those who feel aggrieved about the circumstances of past investigations.
The Department believes that it is now time to move forward, and we can do that only if all parties co-operate and share their knowledge and expertise, to establish what lessons can be learned in relation to the future safety of bulk carriers. I know that the people in the Department, including Mr. Frank Wall, whose correspondence has been mentioned, have at all times acted in a conscientious and concerned way, which is a great credit to their objectivity and to their tenacity in attempting to uphold the highest possible standards of discovery and disclosure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Social Work

11 am

Mr. Andrew Rowe: It is 25 years since the Seebohm report revolutionised the provision of social work and social services in England, and slightly longer since the Kilbrandon report did the same in Scotland. I do not want to suggest at any stage during the debate that we should arrive at the position that Lord Kilbrandon once boldly described by saying that, if we went on as we were, we would soon need a professional qualification to help an old woman across the road. None the less, this is an apposite time for a debate on social work.
When we talk about social work, who or what do we mean? First, we are talking about the fastest growing area of local government spending. Between 1990–91 and 1996–97, there has been a 67 per cent. increase in real terms; in the 25 years since Seebohm, there has been a tenfold increase in real terms. Expenditure this year in England was £7.3 billion—or £9.2 billion if the expenditure that falls to the Department of Social Security is included, as it should be.
Social work involves a huge work force. In September 1995, there were 228.000 people in the United Kingdom armed services. At the same time, there were 238,000 full-time equivalents in local authority social services in England alone. Of those, about 53,000 are qualified social workers. That is a slightly complex figure, and I am not sure that I shall not contradict it later in my speech; finding my way through some of the figures has been quite difficult.
If we include all the cleaners, caterers and so on who work for social services departments, the work force amounts to almost 1 million people, yet we seldom discuss those people in the House. When there are scandals, the media love to hunt for those responsible, in the process further damaging the public image of social workers, yet social workers and social work budgets are charged with undertaking, on behalf of us all, responsibilities that we as citizens find too painful, too difficult or too dangerous to undertake for ourselves. They deserve a debate of their own in this place.
I wonder how many hon. Members are currently sustaining elderly or damaged relatives. How many of us have already turned, or will shortly turn, to social services to help us with that task? Social work is not a remote esoteric service that few of us will encounter personally. It touches most families in the land sooner or later, and it touches them at deeply sensitive points. Families fragment faster in this country than they do almost anywhere else in Europe—800,000 children have no contact with their natural fathers, the number of girls under 16 who conceive children grows every year, and 67,000 young people are in the care of local authorities, either directly or through fostering. I shall say more about those young people later.
What sort of people are social workers? The popular view, fuelled by throwaway jibes in the media, is that they are young dolly birds fresh from college with no experience of life, who are easily thrown by encounters with practical mothers of six whose chief problems are too small a house or too small an income. Like most stereotypes, that image is wrong. Two thirds of social workers were aged 30 or more when they started their social work training, and 50 per cent. were over 35. Many already have qualifications in other fields.
If I list some of what social workers need to know, it will be seen both how complex their job is, and how important training for it is. Social workers are supposed to know about new legislation. Since 1979—I say this with some guilt—more than 50 Acts of Parliament have laid additional responsibilities on social workers. They are also supposed to know about new service arrangements, relevant research findings, how society is organised, the needs of different groups of people, the symptoms and treatment of mental health problems, including those resulting from alcohol or drugs, and about criminality and anti-social behaviour. They are also expected to know about the benefits system—we in the House know how often we alter that—as well as how to assess the strengths and weaknesses of families and other relevant networks, and how to work with families and carers in partnership.
What is more, social workers need to know how to protect themselves against both violence—they are more vulnerable to violence and assault even than the police—and stress. One of the scandals of the present organisation of social services departments is how few of them have in place the kind of support for stressed colleagues that is now commonplace in the fire services and in the police. If ever there were a case of "Physician, heal thyself," this must be it.
The profession is unlike most others in that women outnumber men—by 2:1 as managers, by 3:1 as social workers and by 4:1 as residential workers. Almost all home care staff are women. But in the higher reaches of management, men still outnumber women. That is partly, but only partly, because 90 per cent. of the men, but only 51 per cent. of the women, are full-time workers. Moreover, 20 per cent. of staff have a child under 12 or an elderly relative to care for, which adds considerably to the stress. Black and Asian staff are prominent in the profession and, interestingly, tend to be better qualified than other staff. It is a scandal that almost half of them have experienced racism from fellow workers and social work management.
We are talking about an enormously complex and deeply sensitive task that takes workers into the very heart of the human condition. They are expected to control access to, and to ration on our behalf, the resources provided by the taxpayer—resources that are huge but still, by definition, inadequate. As the demands grow, they must refuse more often, and then accept the anger and despair of those to whom they deny help.
Social workers are daily exposed to situations that raise in them doubts and fears about their own lives and circumstances. How many people can confront a crumbling marriage or a disruptive child without asking questions about their own marriage or children? They must also give authoritative advice about entitlements and legal issues, and argue with professionals in other areas, such as the police, teachers, doctors and magistrates.
What is the training base on which social workers stand to do all that? I am afraid that it is pretty thin. Almost half of social services staff have no professional qualification at all, and the certificate of qualification in social work, which is held by 82 per cent. of professionally qualified staff, is only a two-year qualification. Peter Smallridge, Kent's director of social services, has pointed out that his staff are frequently involved in working with colleagues in Europe, although they are ineligible for employment in the EU because every other country in the EU has a three-year qualification.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the Association of Directors of Social Services how vital research and information is to effective service planning and delivery. He said:
I regard it as essential to have a vigorous and well-targeted research base for social services".
Research methodology, as well as its application, requires skills that a crowded two-year basic training course is unlikely to impart effectively enough to meet my right hon. Friend's goal.
Secondly, care managers are key personnel in the assessment of care needs and the management of budgets and resources, as well as in ensuring the quality of service. I wonder whether we are doing enough to equip them for their increasingly demanding and technology-based role.
Thirdly, there is the added load on staff caused by the switch to user-led services. Citizens charters and the statutory recognition of carers have combined with the professional ethos of social work—which has always demanded that the client's wishes be taken fully into account—to raise user expectation and, rightly, to undermine the former tendency to prescribe solutions that the client meekly accepted. That puts further demands on staff at all levels, and it demands training.
Fourthly, there is the horrifying statistic that almost half of all social services staff have no professional qualification. This means that most staff in residential homes, for example—where many of the most difficult and demanding clients are to be found—provide service with little or no formal recognition of their expertise, or lack of it. Research has found that most of them want to acquire qualifications, but have the least information on training opportunities.
In passing, may I plead for the retention of NVQ level 1 as an invaluable doorway for ill-equipped school leavers into qualification? A similar dearth of qualification is to be found in home care workers. That must be addressed. By looking across the Chamber, I see that I have no need to say any more about the registration of home care workers. I understand the Government's reluctance to incur the expense of a third year of pre-qualifying training, but I urge my hon. Friend—whose reputation is deservedly growing year by year—to acknowledge the importance of upgrading the training of this key profession.
One possibility put forward by Peter Smallridge, among others, is a post-qualification year, supported by academic assessments of assignments on subjects such as multidisciplinary assessment or work-oriented research. That would help my hon. Friend to meet the objectives set by the Secretary of State.
There are three other issues that I wish to raise. First, we have an occupation that employs almost 1 million people in total and deals with the most damaged, difficult and threatening people in society, and there is no regulatory mechanism to govern it. There is nothing in place to stop a worker who has been sacked for bad practice in one authority instantly finding work in another. There are virtually no means of checking on someone's claims of either qualification or experience, and it is high time there were.
The idea of a general council has been in the air since I taught at Edinburgh university 30 years ago, and I believe it to be necessary. I should prefer it to look rather like the Michelin guide, listing what people have done

and providing an indication of their qualifications—such as a rosette for having done a diploma in social work. A knife and fork for having achieved NVQ level 2 is perhaps a little further than we need to go, but the proposition that it should be a register of what people can do and the qualifications that they have achieved seems to fit in with the post-NVQ culture and to be a great deal more useful than merely a list, which can get rapidly out of date. In other words, it should be inclusive rather than exclusive. It should begin by listing those with qualifications, and move on to include the rest. But the idea that there is no mechanism for controlling the ethics or practice of social workers is dangerously bizarre.
The second issue is volunteers. Survey after survey has shown that how a service is delivered matters almost as much as what the service is. I ran, as I have told the House before, a day in Coventry called "Heirs to the Millennium", at which 750 people came together to talk about how we bring up, or fail to bring up, children. On that day, we heard a client with learning difficulties demand that social workers should not patronise her; they should neither prejudge on the basis of where she lives, nor brush her aside if she dares to challenge what they say. That complaint is frequently heard—that social workers are all very well when it comes to empathising, until someone questions what they have said, whereupon they become highly authoritarian and rather cross.
Children in local authority care tell us that the worst thing for them is when a worker fails to turn up as promised. Children in care are a particular worry. Again and again we learn of children, whose overriding need is for stability and continuing affection, getting a new worker—sometimes as often as every two or three weeks. It is a scandal that so many of the 67,000 children in our care suffer so much insecurity before leaving public care, very often into nothing satisfactory. This is where, pre-eminently, volunteers can help.
A volunteer who commits him or herself on a continuing basis can provide a depth and length of care that statutory departments can seldom attain. The same is true of residential homes for the elderly. If we want to reduce the abuse of vulnerable clients, there are few better mechanisms than a steady stream of volunteers passing in and out of residential establishments, building a trusting relationship with a client or two inside.
My local director has told me that one of his ambitions is to remove what he regards as the ghetto effect of putting up a notice saying that a home is run by Kent county council. He says that that is as effective as putting a moat around the home in cutting it off from the local community, who instantly feel that the home has nothing to do with them. I certainly endorse his ambition.
Similarly, volunteers can reduce the demand for service. Homestart, which supports vulnerable families on a long-term basis, can show clearly how it has been able to prevent families from breaking up and becoming a complete charge on public funds. Drop-in centres for people of different age groups are important. One of the things about which we in Coventry heard more than anything else was that young people need somewhere to go to meet their friends, rather than simply walking the streets, prey to every possible opportunity for causing trouble.
Neutral meeting places where divorced fathers can take their children are another crying need. Many fathers who get down for the day find themselves at an endless


succession of McDonald's and cafés, because there is nowhere to go. What they need more than anything else is quiet time with their children, and drop-in centres staffed by sensitive and welcoming volunteers are proving wonderfully successful in the small number of places where they operate.
In social work, the opportunities for volunteering are endless. Professional social workers need to learn how to stimulate volunteer help, work confidently with it and sustain, with their professionalism, the volunteers. It used to be thought a threat to the professional if volunteers muscled in on the act but, increasingly, people realise that such work is an extension of the arm of the professional.
Thirdly, it would be wrong in a debate on this subject to avoid scandal and malpractice. While it is true that many of the shocking cases that have recently come to light arose before the latest reorganisations, the danger will always be with us. Vulnerable people attract abusers, and there will always be abuse in local authority homes, private homes and elsewhere. What matters is that effective mechanisms should be in place to discover abuse promptly and root it out.
Some vulnerable people, especially children, develop strategies for survival that depend on manipulating those who work with them. Teachers, social workers, doctors and others are increasingly vulnerable to false claims made against them, or to being seduced into inappropriate behaviour. The balance is never going to be an easy one to strike. Evidence suggests that, more often than not, children should be believed, but it also suggests that children will talk to professionals of any kind less readily than to relatives or friends.
Social work cannot and should not be expected to be a ministry of happiness or to have a goal of eliminating all the sources of unhappiness and distress that social workers come across. When things go wrong, we have a duty to respond in a measured rather than a convulsive way. Social workers also have a duty to keep their heads. One of the more depressing features of the correspondence columns in Community Care is how often students choose research projects based on the latest scandal. Such prurient interest simply feeds back into the loop, fuelling still further the eagerness of the press and others to extract the maximum stimulation from other people's tragedies while clobbering social work along the way.
The evidence about morale among social workers is confusing. The National Institute of Social Work survey suggested that most social workers enjoy what they do and a surprisingly high percentage claim that they would go on doing it even if they were rich enough not to have to work. The survey carried out by Professional Social Work, however, claimed that more than one third would not have joined the profession if they had known what it was like, and that 66 per cent. of those who work in the health service want to leave. I cannot possibly judge between the two surveys, but my hon. Friend the Minister needs to know that signs of strain are developing, and he should take steps to head it off.
Finally, social work is indispensable. We depend on it, but we must ask ourselves two basic questions: why do we depend on it and should we depend on it so much? One of the key messages of Coventry was that each one of us should remember our responsibility for our fellow citizens.
The huge and rapid growth in social work is partly a reflection of the fragmentation of families, partly an effect of longevity and partly the result of an increase in public expectations that someone somewhere will pick up our pieces for us. It is also a reflection of the readiness of each one of us to shuffle off on to professionals responsibilities that, if we stopped to think, we could often take on. I am glad to have had the chance to thank the staff who take on those responsibilities for me, but there is much to be done if we are to raise their standards and self-esteem proportionate to the expectations we have of them.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful to be able to participate in this debate. First, I must pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mid—Kent (Mr. Rowe) for securing it and for his championing of the social work cause in this place—he has certainly done so during the nine years that I have been here. I also pay tribute to his previous role as the chair of the all-party panel on personal social services. The work that he did with that group for many years was widely appreciated on both sides of the House and throughout social work.
The hon. Gentleman's speech was a little like mine will be—a case of "All Our Yesterdays". He remarked on the length of time that had elapsed since the Seebohm report, which revolutionised personal social services, which reminded me that I trained around the time of the Seebohm changes. I began training in social work in a specialist field and, by the time I had qualified, generic social work was required—people who could cover every area of social work specialisms.
The debate is timely. I am more conscious than ever that social workers are perhaps in a no-win situation. I get angry in this Chamber when I hear some of the comments about social workers, which are based on a profound ignorance—comments from Opposition as well as Conservative Members. I hope that one of the issues that will arise in the debate is how we can better inform some of our colleagues about the skills and tasks mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's introductory speech. I know from bitter experience that social workers are in a no-win situation. Whatever one does in an individual case, one is taking the wrong decision in someone's eyes. I have been lambasted on many occasions, physically assaulted and attacked in the media for doing my job in local authority social work.
I am conscious that social workers have to take decisions daily, particularly on child protection, and that, in the case of individual children at risk, someone will think that the decision is profoundly wrong and will attack the social worker. It concerns me that there is insufficient awareness, particularly in the House, among the Government and the Opposition, of the problems that are faced when one is coming to a proper decision, particularly in a child protection case.
We should all be aware of the way in which changes in community care have placed local authority social workers in an increasingly difficult situation. The court ruling last week, for example, reminded us of the role that social workers play within local authorities as gatekeepers for scarce resources. They often have to tell people, "Yes, we recognise your needs, but sadly the resources are not available to meet those requirements."
I appreciate this brief chance to consider some of the issues that concern people in various areas of social work, which is under attack as never before from elements


within the Government. I exempt the hon. Member for Mid-Kent and the Minister, but I am sure that they will accept that some of their colleagues, as well as some highly irresponsible people in the media and some people in my party, are ignorant as to what social work is about and what tasks social workers face daily.
I was struck by an article in February in Professional Social Work—a magazine to which the hon. Member for Mid—Kent referred—which is the magazine of the British Association of Social Workers. The article mentioned the campaign against social workers at a national level, saying:
This campaign is aimed not at the power of social workers as a professional group—which is minimal—but at their symbolic position as negotiators of citizenship for the disenfranchised.
If it succeeds, social work will become a technical activity in which tasks are separated from creative helping, and ethics are seen as irrelevant.
That sums up many of the issues pointed out by the hon. Gentleman and many of the problems faced by social workers in defending the work they do now.
One of the major problems faced by social work throughout its history is that its very existence is a permanent reminder to politicians of their failure to deal with a range of social and political issues. At least 50 per cent. of the individual cases with which I had to deal during my time in social work, were related to or caused by material problems and not by personal relationships within the family.
I am conscious of the fact that, in recent times, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened. That is certainly the case in my constituency, and I suspect that it is the same elsewhere. The role of social work has been concerned more and more with dealing with those who have missed out on material wealth and a decent standard of living. Low incomes, unemployment and bad housing are often the basic reasons for social worker involvement. Other related factors may have led to referrals, but those are the root causes resulting in the involvement of, particularly, local authority social workers and organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
To some extent, attacks on social work and social workers are often a camouflage for a failure to address those material issues. Those who attack social workers are often the very people who are not prepared to get their hands dirty by looking at the reasons why social workers are involved with people facing difficulties in their material circumstances. I am not just attacking the Government when I say that. My party needs to reflect on one or two of its recent announcements, which betray a naivety about the root causes of some of our social problems.
The announcement about curfew orders nicely sums up the problem that I am illustrating. Superficially, the idea may appear attractive and many people might say, "Yes, we need that." However, beyond the soundbite politics, we need to look in detail at why such an idea might be suggested. It does not deal with the reason why we have a significant number of out-of-control youngsters roaming the streets or why those youngsters are in certain parts of our constituencies. It does not deal with wholesale family and community breakdown and the way in which we have ghettoised the poor in recent times. My party must look in greater detail at some of the issues when it comes to

office, because one or two of us will not be happy with superficial suggestions about sweeping the streets and getting people back into their houses. We need to look at what is going on in those houses and what is going on between families and communities. One or two people are not thinking as deeply about that as they should be.
I am worried by the fact that some highly effective social work is under attack from the Home Office. The hon. Member for Mid—Kent did not mention the probation and after-care service. I accept that we are talking to a Minister from the Department of Health who is responsible for personal social services, but social work is an issue that covers other Departments. The role of probation officers now is worthy of examination. Of all the social work activities in recent years, the probation and after-care service has shone through as an example of success. It has diverted people away from offending and dealt with the rehabilitation of offenders.
I suspect that the Minister is as uneasy as I am about the Government's attack on probation officers and the idea that we should introduce some sort of militaristic attitude that will toughen up the service and offer a different response to offenders. I believe that we are ignoring the tremendous achievements that have been made in probation work recently, and I hope that the Minister will press his colleagues in the Home Office to review again their thinking about the future of the probation and after-care service.
I quoted from Professional Social Work, the magazine of the British Association of Social Workers. The article refers to social work becoming a technical activity. We should consider that issue. I am conscious of the fact that a deliberate consequence of recent policy is that we are moving away from what I saw as the basic job of befriending, counselling and assisting people, and towards the technical and administrative side of Government legislation. We need to look at what that means for the future role of social work and the training of social workers.
I was fortunate to be involved with the Standing Committee that dealt with the Children Act 1989. I remember vividly the feeling across parties that, with that piece of legislation, we had achieved a major breakthrough for the future well-being of children. I am proud to have been involved in that, and I pay tribute to all hon. Members on both sides of the House who were also involved.
My concern is that the implementation of that legislation has concentrated specifically on the technical aspects, a sort of legalism about whether one can intervene in a child protection case. That concentration has been largely at the expense of what I thought was the philosophy of the legislation—prevention. I believe that the real philosophy behind that legislation was a reminder that the real work with children and young people should be preventive, and that crisis intervention is only one small part of what we expect to see. I am worried that we are concentrating too much on that technical activity arid that a whole raft of policies involved with prevention are being forgotten. I do not blame local authorities for that. I appreciate that they have to deal with crisis intervention in a way that perhaps none of us could have anticipated a few years ago.
The other piece of legislation that has gone through the House during my time here is the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. The hon. Member for


Mid—Kent talked about the increased resources coming into local authority social work. I think that he made the point that many of those resources relate to the transfer of social security functions to local authorities. That legislation brought about the assessment process and the care management process. I was talking only yesterday to someone in charge of a social work course in a university in West Yorkshire. He said that we should be looking at producing accountants from social work courses, because the job that they have to do in care management and managing scarce resources at local authority level requires technical skills that they are not being offered by current social work training.
The recent supervised discharge order—the legislation that went through the House last year—concentrates on a narrow, technical area of mental health. I am worried that many of the wider issues in mental health, which relate to how people function in the community, particularly those coming out of psychiatric hospitals, are not being looked at. The legislation concentrates on one aspect—the supervision of people in the community who have a serious mental disorder.
That is the media agenda. The media agenda for community care is that it has failed. It has not failed. Under successive Governments, it has been a tremendous success, but we are seeing a concentration on a small number of tragic cases, and social workers get the blame. Sadly, we are responding to that media agenda by introducing legislation that marginalises the role of social workers into one small technical element. I am not doubting the importance of that technical element, but it is at the expense of a range of other important issues.
I endorse entirely the points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent on NVQs and the training of people who are not academic highfliers. People such as home carers are fundamental to social work. I want to concentrate on the training of social work professionals who attain social work qualifications, but I do not doubt that we need to consider carefully the hon. Gentleman's points about NVQs and the basic training of people who do crucial jobs, such as home care and caring, perhaps in residential social work, at a basic care rather than a managerial level.
We must address the issue of the length of professional social work courses. We are way behind other European countries in having only a two-year course. I am conscious that three years' training is squashed into two, as a direct result of which we lose out on quality. There is immense concern in professional social work about the lack of degree status for qualified social workers.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the complexity of modern social work has increased tremendously. He said that there have been 50 Acts of Parliament since 1979 which have changed the role of social workers. Sadly, their training does not reflect those tremendous changes, which he rightly identified.
I am also concerned about the lack of training for residential social workers. It is to our cost that we have allowed a deterioration in the number of people being trained for residential social work. The inquiries currently under way as a result of events in Clwyd and elsewhere in Britain will no doubt pinpoint the fact that the lack of proper training for residential social workers is a significant problem.
I also welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on the current arrangements for practice placements for those undertaking professional training. Local authorities face huge difficulties in responding to the requirements of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work for practice placements for people on professional social work courses.
I understand that the revenue support grant makes some assumption of funding for practice placements, but the message from local authorities, which believe in proper social work training, is that such funding goes nowhere near provision of the necessary resources.
I endorse the point made about the general social services council. We come back time and again on issue after issue to the need for a professional register of people involved in social work. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that progress is being made on that. There is cross-party acceptance of the need for such a model. People who see damage done to people through bad practice in social work arising from the lack of a professional register are a little impatient.
Hospital social work increasingly gives rise to all sorts of problems as a result of the relationship between local authorities and health care. I should have liked to say more on that, but I am conscious that time is limited. That area has not been sufficiently discussed in the context of recent changes in community care.
Education social work has not been mentioned and I put in a plea for more consideration to be given to the valuable role of education social workers, in assisting young people to make the best of their education. The announcement last week of more selection will result in more people being written off. I was one of those who were written off at the age of 11, so I feel strongly on that point. People who drop out of the system need attention, and education social work has a role to play in that.
Finally, I make one plea which I hope will be taken up on both sides of the House as a result of today's debate. There is complete and utter shameful ignorance in this place of the role of social work. I commend the hon. Member for Mid-Kent for flying the flag for social work for many years. We should press the Industry and Parliament Trust to consider placing Members of Parliament from both sides of the House in various types of social work, just as it places them in business. Labour Members need that as much as Conservative Members—increasingly, with new Labour. I hope that we shall consider that suggestion seriously. There are hon. Members who do not have a clue about what is going on in social work, and who should have the chance to learn before they open their mouths in the Chamber.

Mr. John Gunnell: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). The only two Conservative Members of Parliament who have taken an active interest in social services since I have been a Member of the House, which I recognise is rather a brief time, come, I believe, from Kent.
I recognise the value of the work done by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent over the years. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield was a principal social worker in


the area that I represent, so I know that he has handled difficult case work, and he brings his active experience to the House.
It is clear from today's debate—Labour Members might have their minds on a further meeting that is due to take place shortly—that relatively few Members take an active interest in the issue that we are discussing. That is a pity, but it is important that we should continue to act together. On most of the issues that we shall talk about, there is a genuine cross-party view.
It is important that we make progress on those issues. It is notable that, in perhaps the most important domestic crises to be brought to the House in recent days—the abuse in north Wales, which is now the subject of an inquiry, to which I shall return, and the Dunblane massacre—those involved might not have committed such atrocities had appropriate action been taken earlier.
We can learn things from those tragedies, which will be extremely important to the way in which we think in future. This is not an area where we need deregulation; we need increased regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield attempted to introduce the idea of regulation in domiciliary care. It is important that people who go into other people's homes should have a measure of trust, and that their credentials should have been examined.
The process of vetting has been raised by the Dunblane massacre and events in Clwyd and will clearly be studied by Sir William Utting in the report that he is preparing for the House. I hope that that will result in recommendations on which we can act in order to safeguard the clients of social workers, those in residential care and those whose homes are visited by people as agents of social services or the community performing acts related to community care. It is important that such people are vetted, that the vetting procedures continue, that they take place rather more rapidly than is often the case today, and that we ensure that there are proper safeguards for the public in the way in which the services are organised.
The hon. Member for Mid-Kent and my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield raised many important points which I need not repeat. I have no professional experience in this area, but I have experience as chair of the social services committee in a major city. Anyone who is chair of a social services committee rapidly recognises the valuable work that social workers undertake, and, as the hon. Member for Mid-Kent said, the real danger in which they find themselves. I read that those dangers come more frequently from people under mental stress, which we must take into account when attempting to legislate to minimise the dangers for people who work with such clients. Although I recognise that it is impossible to make the job completely free from danger, it is possible to ensure that help is at hand most of the time when the work is being done.
People recognise the responsibility that social workers have, if for no other reason than that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield: when they make a mistake, it often has serious effects on people's lives, and if it becomes public knowledge, they receive regrettable media attention. It is important that the training of which the hon. Member for Mid-Kent spoke is put in place, because the decisions that social workers take are sensitive. He made it clear that there is a lack of training

at present. It is important that we have a sensitive understanding of the job that has to be done. There is a narrow line in the decisions that social workers have to take in many cases—about an individual client, about removing a child from home. Those decisions are finely balanced, and must be treated with understanding. There must be the necessary protection for the social worker, but our primary job is to legislate for the protection of the clients.
There is serious evidence of a crisis of morale among social workers. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent mentioned two reports. In fact, both teach us aspects of the truth about social workers. Many people find it an extremely satisfying activity and would not exchange it for any other, and many people involve themselves in social work voluntarily because of the satisfaction that they get from the assistance that they can give. But a survey in Professional Social Work, in conjunction with the university of Central Lancashire, has some important lessons for us. It is a mistake to ignore its data, because they say something about social work as a profession today.
The survey tells us:
Half of the profession has considered leaving social work in the past three years—mostly because of stress, frustration at lack of resources and the feeling that they are not doing the job they were trained for.
That is a serious figure, which we should examine. We should look at the frequency of stress among social workers, because, having been close to them through my role in the city council and my continuing relationship with people who do that work in my constituency, I see the signs of stress. I hear of instances in which stress causes individuals to leave the profession or to have long periods of absence.
According to the survey, which covered a large number of social workers—1,391—some 49.8 per cent. had had stress problems in the previous year. Those problems may not have been serious, but the social workers were asked to outline the effects that that stress had on them. Some 15.6 per cent. suggested that they had physical illness as a result of stress in their work; others felt that they had sleep problems as a result.
Removing a child from home is a very hard decision to take. I have dealt with people who have had the job of deciding whether, because the child might be at risk, a baby has to be removed from the family at birth, and it is a difficult decision. People recognise the enormous emotional stress for the parents of that child, but they feel nevertheless that, for the protection of the child, it is necessary to remove it. But that is not a job that social workers do in a matter-of-fact way. It is a very difficult job, and one must retain some emotional detachment, but frequently the price of that is internal stress. Under the Mental Health Act 1983, it is the social worker who initially decides that a person needs to be taken into residential care for his or her protection. Those decisions involve emotion, and the price of detachment from those emotions is that one internalises them, which is likely to cause internal stress unless one can come to terms with it, and unless the rest of one's life is well regulated.
Importance has been attached to the role of a general social services council. We should look at the extra demands that are placed on social workers as a result of the current system. In a way, the purchaser-provider split


is inimical to social services, because one is asking people to do a managerial job. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield spoke about that in technical terms, and assessment has a certain technical aspect to it. One is also asking social workers to build up a relationship with clients. It is often not possible to have a completely different person doing the assessment.
Accountancy might be handled at managerial level, but frequently social services managers are not completely absent from their field, and the relationships that are built up between social workers and clients mean that assessment cannot be completely detached from care. That is another distinction between the way in which social work was viewed in the past and the way in which a market forces element has been introduced in aspects of social work.
There is a need for a general social services council. The Minister and the all-party panel on personal social services have had frequent discussions about that, but it is important to move it forward. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that it is moving forward. According to the National Institute for Social Work, a general social services council is needed
for the protection of the public, who are entitled to expect high standards from staff who impinge so closely on the quality of their lives; for the protection of employers, who need to know that those they employ meet those standards and are fit to practise; for the protection of staff themselves, who have a right to take a pride in their work and to expect the confidence of the public.
I have been talking about that to the Minister and to his predecessor during the whole of my time as a Member of the House. The matter has not been taken forward fast enough. It is time that we were able to offer social workers validation through registration. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that. Many social workers are concerned that the role of local authorities, which have an important role to play in social services, is decreasing. They are concerned about the extent to which that is seen as a positive move to transfer the work that local authorities do as a provider to private agencies.
It should be stressed that the bulk of social service provision, including community care, can be provided mainly under the aegis of local authorities. I do not see the local authority as a diminishing provider, and I hope that the Minister agrees, but there is uncertainty in the profession.
I am glad that we have been able to discuss the position of social workers, and I look forward to hearing from the Front Benches.

12 noon

Mr. Alan Milburn: The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) deserves all our thanks for initiating such a sensible, level-headed debate, which has been free of the crisis-ridden atmosphere that all too often dominates our discussions of social work issues.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, this is an appropriate time at which to discuss the subject—25 years after the creation of the modern social services department. As he also said, in that quarter of a century the nature of social work has changed dramatically. We now have an opportunity to take stock, to appraise the successes as well as the failures and to plan for the future.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have drawn attention to the dramatic changes in social services in recent years. Social work has been in the front line of all those changes. Social workers, who are often vilified, provide invaluable services, usually for the most disadvantaged, and sometimes for the most disturbed and disruptive, members of the community. The overwhelming majority of social workers do a good job in very difficult circumstances. Their role requires them to make sensitive decisions within a tight legislative framework and limited budgets, and the legal context in which they operate is becoming ever more complex and demanding.
The ink had barely dried on the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 before new legislation was being planned. We have had the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, the National Health Service Act 1977, the Mental Health Act 1984, the Registered Homes Act 1984 and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. All those Acts have changed the lives of many people, but they have also placed new and complex responsibilities on the shoulders of social services staff. In particular, they charge social workers with assessing need and commissioning services as well as delivering them.
While every area of social work has been affected by those changes, children's services have inevitably attracted the most public attention. The recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Health of an inquiry into organised child abuse is welcome, provided that it leads to urgent action. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) rightly referred to the need for appropriate safeguards for children in need. Events in Staffordshire some years ago, and the crimes of Frank Beck, demonstrated how abuse can be organised, while Cleveland and Orkney showed how difficult it is to investigate.
Inevitably, the pressures caused by a combination of new legislation and public opinion have led many social work staff to feel that they have moved too far from preventive work. There are no easy yardsticks in child care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) pointed out, social workers tend to be damned if they do and damned if they don't, but those who err on the side of caution, and on the side of the child, must surely be in the right.
Unfortunately, life in front-line social work is pretty complex; it is rarely straightforward. Social workers perform statutory duties that have major ramifications for those they help. Although the thrust of the legislation requires them to involve users in decision making, in reality many people are referred to social workers against their will, and securing their co-operation requires considerable skill. Social workers often operate in the context of the courts, and are sometimes caught in a legal minefield.
The onus on staff undertaking assessment for care management, and on those involved in direct care provision, is particularly challenging: the role requires a high level of decision-making ability and personal competence. The social work task is more diverse than it has ever been. Potentially, social workers could be working with all age groups, from babies to the very elderly, in different ethnic communities and in the field and in day and residential settings, dealing with issues ranging from health care to juvenile justice and offering


services ranging from family support to legal intervention. The depth and breadth of the tasks with which they must cope is immense.
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South pointed out, there is a crisis of morale and stress-related problems in social work. Social work has also been in the front line of the social and economic changes that have confronted Britain during the past two decades. People needing social work help tend to become ever more dependent, which makes the social worker's job ever more difficult. That, too, should come as no surprise. After all, during the past 17 years unemployment and crime have doubled, child poverty has trebled and the poorest in society have seen their real incomes fall. Arguably, our country is now more divided than at any point in this century, and all too often social work has picked up the tab for social division and economic failure.
That situation cannot continue. The country will cease to be able to afford its key public services if our economy is not modernised and our society reunited. Unless we have a society in which young people feel hope again and families once more form the building blocks for stronger communities, our country's caring services will simply be overwhelmed, and social work will be reduced to a firefighting exercise.
Central Government must take the lead. We need an approach that ensures that social work operates in the context of a new national effort to improve opportunity, spread prosperity and strengthen community. Social work needs to take place in an environment where a nationally led anti-poverty strategy seeks to tackle the unemployment, deprivation and sheer lack of hope that have come to dominate too many local communities. The time has come to relieve the pressure on our hard-pressed public services, including social services. That would allow social work to reclaim some of its heritage of family support, rather than sticking to its current role as merely a family crisis agency.

Mr. Rowe: Not all the problems are directly related to poverty. The Trustee Savings bank survey suggests that people between the ages of 15 and 19 spend an average of £14 a week on alcohol.

Mr. Milburn: I have some interest in that issue, as a former chairman of the all-party group on alcohol misuse. But I know from my discussions with social services departments—the hon. Gentleman will have had similar discussions—and with front-line social workers that many of the problems that they confront are a direct product of poverty and deprivation, particularly in inner cities.
I am not just calling for a new policy approach in the Government's tackling of those difficulties; I am also calling for a new spirit of co-operation between Departments in policy making. All too often, the failure to co-ordinate policy in Whitehall produces cracks that cannot be papered over by local services. If social work is to meet the next century's challenges, therefore, a new approach to policy making and new national policies need to be accompanied by something else—the point that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent made about training.
To juggle the often conflicting demands that social workers face, they clearly need to be properly and appropriately trained. The need, however, is not just for

the right sort of entry qualifications, but for appropriate in-work training that continually updates skills and knowledge. The most pressing priority is for all social workers to have to demonstrate general competence. Whatever pressures they face, there should be no excuses for incompetence. Service users should be confident that the professionals charged with making important decisions about their lives are working to agreed standards of practice.
Currently, practice is measured against a range of standards, some of which are organisational and some of which are professional. Clarification is needed to ensure consistency and clarity. Standards for services and standards of practice and of conduct for staff should all be related to outcomes for users and for carers.
Despite the heavy responsibilities that social workers bear, there is, as all hon. Members have said, still no statutory body to which social workers and other social care staff are responsible for their standards and conduct. In this sense, social workers are unique compared with their peers in the medical, nursing and health care professions. Labour Members back the creation of a general social services council, precisely to ensure the highest possible standards and conduct among care staff who work with vulnerable people.
Although there is much work to be done to make the proposal a reality—perhaps the Minister will update us on that—and to ensure that it does not make demands on the taxpayer, a general social services council would have enormous benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South pointed them out. There would be benefits not only to users and employers but to staff. A GSSC would protect staff against people who are incompetent or unfit, and whose activities undermine confidence in the profession.
A general social services council would give the social work profession the status that it deserves, but I do not want to create a new vested interest, divorced from other caring professionals. Social workers have a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable members of society and to promote a better quality of life for people under stress, but they are not alone in that task. We favour a multi-agency approach to service delivery. We want to end unnecessary duplication of effort and, most important, we want the multi-dimensional needs of service users to be reflected in multi-disciplinary working, where professionals from a variety of agencies co-operate for the benefit of the individual. After all, a person with a mental health problem who is living in the community is as likely to need help from a community psychiatric nurse and a local authority housing officer as from a social worker.
All too often, however, multi-disciplinary working is frustrated by the lack of appropriate joint planning of service delivery. In that sense, the confusion in policy making at central Government level finds a ready reflection in what goes on locally. That is why I want local authorities and health authorities to work much more closely together in planning community care and in implementing its delivery.
Such an approach is especially necessary if a "care in the community" approach to mental health policy is to command genuine public confidence. Time and again, in report after report, we have been warned of the fault lines in mental health policy and practice, which can give rise to tragedy. The messages are always the same,


particularly the failure to communicate and to co-ordinate. Only better co-operation between health and social care professionals can overcome those problems.
Specifically, urgent action is needed to clarify the relationship between the care management procedures operated by social workers and the care programme approach operated by clinicians. Thought should also be given to improving multiagency training in the health and social care sectors.
The changes that I have outlined—a new national effort to tackle poverty and disadvantage, improved policy co-ordination both nationally and locally, and new standards safeguards—will help to overcome public concerns about social work. They will also help to give a new lease of life to a profession that deserves support for the role that it plays in overcoming social exclusion and in promoting social cohesion. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent and all those who have spoken have done the House and the country a favour in highlighting the importance of the profession, and the changes that are needed to ensure that it flourishes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowls): I echo what has been said in saluting my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). His belief in and experience of social work and care shone through his speech. We owe him a great debt for bringing this subject to the House. I hope that it will lead to other debates on social work as that great area of professional work develops. I suspect that we also look forward to taking his Michelin guide on our travels around the country. "Eat out with your social worker" is a new concept.
When talking about a person with learning difficulties, my hon. Friend rightly talked about the need to understand people's needs, and even people. We must get the "Don't patronise me" message across. I have heard it said by people with learning difficulties. "Don't talk over my head", and "Don't talk down to me" are other messages that we should get across.
The same applies to my hon. Friend's message about that dreadful term "care leavers". As young people move from care to independence, we have a common duty to enable them to pick up the reins of adulthood and to benefit from their past care. We must ensure that they do not experience a sudden drop off. I endorse too what my hon. Friend said about volunteers. He is a specialist in that matter. We would do well to listen to him and to develop it much more.
I acknowledge too the complementary experience of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I always try to be helpful, so I will do my best to answer the request from old Labour to help to educate new Labour. It does not understand, he said, so I understand that request. We will do what we can over the coming months and years.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the probation service and its role with the police, those involved in education and others, in diversionary work to help young people to avoid getting into difficulties that can lead to custody and other problems. That is an important matter. He talked about crisis intervention work, which, of course, is important. I hope that he was

not underestimating the emphasis that we have placed, through messages from research and other areas, on the need to concentrate on prevention, so that today's problem does not become tomorrow's crisis. I note too his interesting thoughts on the Industry and Parliament Trust. Perhaps not industry, but someone should, perhaps, be doing just that.
I acknowledge the comments of the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) about social workers' role and job having challenges, stresses and strains. I hope, however, that we will take the opportunity not just to talk about the gloom and doom that may come from surveys, but to talk up and to celebrate social workers' achievements. Ultimately, that will do social workers and social care workers a greater favour than concentrating on the downside.
I salute the 1 million men and women working in the private, public and voluntary sectors who devote their careers to the care of the most vulnerable children and adults—from child welfare, child protection and child custody, to the mentally ill and people with physical, sensory or learning disabilities, to people who are frail of body or of mind, to addicts who abuse their bodies and their minds. We salute social care workers today, and I do so when I travel around the country and witness the dedication, care and creativity that characterises the work of the best of them.
We hear about cases of poor quality, political correctness, intrusiveness, rigidity and, sometimes—sadly—of downright wickedness. Such instances often catch the headlines and are rightly condemned, but they are not the reality of the vast majority of people working in social care, who provide high-quality service and daily perform tasks and make decisions that most of us would rather not perform and make.
This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Seebohm reforms, which not only founded modern local authority social services departments but created what has in effect become the fourth pillar of the welfare state, ranking alongside the NHS, social security and education. In the quarter of a century since Seebohm, each generation has brought its own perspective and innovation to social care. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) reeled off some of the legislation that has been enacted in the interim. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Children Act 1989, but I would add it to his list. Those measures are notable landmarks of change and, most recently, we have seen legislation and progress in respect of mental health. carers and direct payments.
This year, total social services spending, including DSS preserved rights spending on community care, has risen to £10 billion—a figure approaching the spend on NHS family health services. Local authorities are employing about 233,000 staff in the various sectors of personal social services, and about 90 per cent. of field social work staff are qualified. If the voluntary and private sectors are included, the figure rises to 1 million. During the past decade, there has been a considerable shift in clientele; more people now work in domiciliary and day care services and occupational therapy, reflecting a move away from residential provision. Social workers are engaged in a wide range of services for highly dependent people who are vulnerable by reason of age and condition, as well as in specialised services such as mental health, young offenders, adoption and fostering.
I pay unreserved tribute to the way in which front-line social workers and social services staff in general have responded to the challenges that they faced at a time of structural, service and ethos change. Local government reorganisation, new responsibilities for community care, care at home rather than in a home, expansion of the range and type of service provider, services tailored to people rather than people made to suit services and greater empowerment, independence and choice for service users are challenges that social workers in all sectors have striven to meet.
We have opened doors to real choice and dignity for people who need care services, and forward-looking social workers and social service directors welcome that development. Making a difference to the lives of the people who, to a greater or lesser extent, rely on social care does not and should not mean taking over or controlling their lives. The values and ethos of social service professions have developed over the past 10 years into a general movement towards the real empowerment of service users. The whole thrust of social service changes, whether in respect of adults or children, has been to give users a greater say in the care support that they are given and a stronger voice in the way in which they are helped to live their lives. That movement has been reflected in the wide range of policy and practice changes that, through legislation and guidance, we have encouraged or required authorities to adopt.
In social services, the human and social values underlying the citizens charter were already well developed by the time that they were set out in the community care charter—for example, through the direction on choice for people needing residential care. Community care reforms put a new emphasis on consulting service users and their carers fully.
The Children Act 1989, and its regulations and guidance, make the interests, wishes and feelings of the child paramount whenever practicable in decisions affecting his or her future. Complaints procedures were established with a genuinely independent element. In all, the greater involvement and stronger voice of service users in all aspects of their care that has been led by social workers enables social workers to do their jobs in ways that should preserve people's real dignity.
While there is much to applaud in the difficult and complex work performed by social workers, we recognise that, sometimes, things go wrong. At the lower end of the scale of seriousness, there are still to be found occasional examples of a faded and outmoded political correctness. Many hon. Members will have had complaints from independent sector providers concerning the over-zealous regulation that persists in some areas—the sort of thinking that found its way into parts of the first draft of what was then known as "Home Life 2", which the House debated not long ago. My Department has issued practice guidance to restore a proper balance in the way that adoptions are handled.

Mr. Rowe: Perhaps my hon. Friend is underplaying some complaints from the private sector, which feels strongly and has evidence that there is more than just bureaucratic discrimination—that ethos discrimination makes life extremely difficult for the private sector.

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope that the discrimination that is felt in some parts of

the country will be overcome as more authorities, elected members and managers understand the benefits to service users of the best of the independent sector.
At the other end of the scale of seriousness is abuse. We all appreciate the careful and dedicated work that social services put into child protection. There is no knowing how many catastrophes and how much suffering have been prevented. I recognise that the work of many staff in helping young people to rebuild their lives often goes unrecorded. Many cases of abuse uncovered in recent years occurred 20 or 30 years ago, sometimes in facilities outside the social services or for which local authorities did not at the time have the same responsibility that they do now.
None of us can feel comfortable about failures at member or manager level to discharge the responsibility of protection from abuse. I am glad of the welcome given to Sir William Utting's thorough review of safeguards, to ascertain whether they are adequate. Sir William will bring forward any recommendations that he thinks fit, and we will study them carefully.
Regulatory and management safeguards, and the regulation of social services personnel, are also important. We intend to issue before the summer recess a consultation document that will describe and report positively on suggested standards of conduct and competence that we commissioned from groups led by the National Institute for Social Work and Price Waterhouse. That work has shown that such standards can be articulated in social services. The consultation document will seek views on the various possible mechanisms for disseminating and enforcing professional standards.
One mechanism is the creation of a statutory council, broadly of the kind used to regulate standards in other caring professions. I fully understand the wish of many people working in social services and of the all-party panel for a general social services council, and I am aware of growing support among social service employers for such a council.
Our consultation document will give full weight to those views, widen the canvas of discussion to user and wider consumer interests that have not so far contributed substantially to the debate, and outline practical issues. A large number of people work in social services, but not all social care—particularly at the sharp end, involving vulnerable groups—is provided by people with backgrounds suitable for registration with a professional body.
Existing statutory councils in other professions have never found it easy to spot in advance individuals who are subsequently found—for example, after disciplinary proceedings or criminal conviction—to he unsuitable to work with vulnerable people. Nor have they invariably concluded that it is just or reasonable that individuals whose registration has been removed or suspended should be permanently banned from practising their vocations. Our consultation document will—I hope constructively—expose those issues, which we certainly realise must be tackled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent also raised the issue of training. Although the three-year case is yet to be proven, I accept his point about the need to examine post-qualifying education to discover whether we can ensure that it is adequate to keep people up to


date and to achieve the right combination of academic and practical training. We will certainly consider what he said, and I shall discuss it with him on a future occasion.
This has been an interesting and useful debate. Social workers will continue to have a key role in delivering services to vulnerable people. We owe it to them and to those whom they serve to do all that we can to help them perform that role effectively. That is the best way to ensure that people working in social work deserve and achieve the public respect and standing that comes from an often difficult and challenging job that is well done.

Holiday Airlines (Safety)

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Most people have only one annual holiday, which they save for throughout the year. Therefore, it is very important to them to know not only that they are protected by correct safety laws, but that they will receive proper protection from their country's legislation.
Over past months, I have become increasingly concerned about the number of cheap holidays advertised, which means that many holidaymakers buy holidays but are not aware that, in some cases, a holiday advertised by a perfectly reputable travel agent may not necessarily have behind it either an aircraft or even an aircraft slot that would allow a flight to land at a particular airport at a particular time.
I believe that almost all our holidaymakers would be confused if we were to ask them to what protection they are entitled. Most people who buy a British holiday from a travel agent assume that they are reasonably safe—which has always been the case in the past. Unfortunately, there has recently been a growth in the numbers of brokers who lease planes after they have already sold the holiday, and in the numbers of tour companies that do not have confirmed aircraft or proper planning to run holidays in the manner in which they were presented to the tourist.
Does that matter? It matters enormously. A responsible airport authority will respond quickly if an airline does not have permission to land an aircraft at a particular airport at a particular time, but which instead exercises a mild form of blackmail and tells air traffic control, "We have so many hundreds of British holidaymakers on board. We therefore must land—otherwise, there may be a problem". But that is not a good basis on which to organise a travel industry.
In April, therefore, I wrote to the Secretary of State to set out some of my worries about travel companies, check-in procedures, the way in which international rules are applied, and the actions that Britain is taking to ensure that we are complying in every way with necessary safety standards. I am not overwhelmingly impressed by the fact that I wrote to the Secretary of State on 23 April but received a reply only this morning, 2 July. The Department should not be commended on its sense of urgency in this matter.
The letter is astonishingly complacent. I should explain that all the countries with which we normally deal are party to the Chicago convention, and that they should adhere to its rules. Some time ago, the Federal Aviation Administration in America—which is also party to the Chicago convention—became concerned about the safety of American nationals, and instigated a series of checks. Some of the checks were audits on the ground, but many of them consisted of banning or limiting the action of certain foreign airlines.
In conjunction with the Governments concerned, the FAA went to the countries in which those flights originated, and checked on safety standards and maintenance. In fact, that exceeds the requirements of the Chicago convention, and many people would say that it was breaking some of the convention's terms.
The FAA took those actions because it believed that American nationals on holiday needed to be protected. When I began to question the Government about our


reaction to some of the difficulties, I was appalled to be given what I can only call the brush-off. I asked, for example, whether we were following an action plan similar to the FAA's. I received a reply that said, "You should ask the FAA." On a Sunday afternoon, I managed to obtain information from the Internet about which countries and which categories were banned—information that Her Majesty's Government were unwilling or unable to give me.
Moreover, the FAA, when asked, provided me with someone who was prepared to come to London to talk to me about the airline safety records of various countries. The FAA not only maintains long lists—which constantly change, because it is a moving operation—of countries which it believes have safety problems, but instigates talks with people in those countries. Many of the airlines that fly into the UK are already on the FAA's banned or limited list.
I was very concerned about that. However, I have been told in this letter—which I have read only very briefly—"We are not concerned about the FAA. We have carefully considered the implications of the FAA programme for our dealings with the states in question." It states:
We have concluded that we could reasonably take the FAA findings as evidence that something may be wrong … we are less convinced that as signatories to the Chicago Convention we could, or indeed should, simply replicate FAA action".
If that is the Government's attitude—fine.
Why is this issue so important? I recently received a letter from a holidaymaker who had been on the "notorious" Excalibur flight. The letter is from a very sensible family, who wrote to the reservations manager of Globespan to set out some of what had happened to them on their outward and inward flights. It states, first, that there were
Severe problems on outgoing flight, due to lack of tickets
and that there was no clear information about the plane.
The letter continues:
Despite numerous telephone calls, three separate sets of tickets failed to arrive, until the day before departure.
Flight 066 split between two different airlines, causing a further three-hour delay. Despite claims this was unforeseen
the staff handed out pre-printed letters. I do not know whether that means that the airline foresees that it will have problems not with particular flights but with every flight. It does not inspire confidence.
The letter goes on:
All party members seated separately
in the aircraft, resulting in some small children being separated from their parents. There were "foreign-speaking cabin staff", and, despite the fact that it was a daylight flight, they were ordered to keep the cabin in darkness.
The return flight was even more horrific. The letter states:
Following check-in, three fire engines and men in breathing apparatus working on the plane, causing initial concern and delay".
They were informed at last that the plane was ready. An announcement was made for the front half of the plane to board, but the rear-half passengers would have to wait, because the mechanics had not finished. The captain announced that the delay had been caused by an electrical fault. That was rectified, and the plane was ready to take off.
They then experienced a further, absolutely horrifying catalogue of problems, including finding themselves in a smoke-filled plane. Eventually, 91 of the passengers refused to travel on the plane, and had either to find their own way back or to sit up in the airport all night. That is scarcely a sensible way to operate any airline.
I then inquired into not only Excalibur but Air Ops. Air Operations, or Air Ops, is a company which has produced a series of most interesting names, and which keeps reappearing. I have been questioning the Department about it for some time. Air Ops recently went into liquidation, but has been resurrected as Air Ops International. It is currently applying for permission to operate between the United Kingdom and various European destinations.
The company is Swedish-registered, and all the safety inquiries that I have made of the Department were met with the answer that this country has no problems with Swedish air safety standards, and is quite happy to accept Swedish-registered planes. That is fine—we should be happy to do so when we know that safety standards are equal to ours—but if someone leases a plane, parks it at a British airport, fills it with British holidaymakers, flies it, possibly with a foreign-speaking crew, to a third country, returns it to Britain and parks it at the same airport without ever returning it to its country of origin or the country where it is registered, it must be clear that it is not undergoing either spot checks or day-to-day monitoring. It is true in the abstract that Swedish safety laws are excellent, but if an aircraft never goes back into Swedish air space, how on earth do we know that its safety standards are being maintained?
Let us consider Air Ops in detail. The company is owned by Thomas Johansson. Mr. Johansson was formerly involved with airlines such as Time Air, Omega Air and Sultan Air, all of which have gone into liquidation. As I said, Air Ops has been resurrected as Air Ops International. It is clear that not only individual holidaymakers but the Civil Aviation Authority has been having difficulties. I asked what debts were owed to the CAA by Sultan Air when it went into receivership. I also asked what was happening about flights operated by Air Operations Europe as a result of the High Court ruling of 10 October 1994, and about Omega Air and the other companies.
The reply that I received was very instructive. I was told that Sultan Air left no outstanding debts, but that, on 10 October, the High Court ruled that Air Operations Europe had been the operator of a particular aircraft against which the CAA obtained an order of sale, and that, at a further hearing on 14 November, the High Court ruled that, unless payment of outstanding route charges and the CAA's costs was made, the CAA would be at liberty to proceed with the sale. Not surprisingly, the money was forthcoming, so no detention action was taken against that aircraft. When it is explained in detail what is happening with other aircraft, it becomes clear that, whenever difficulties arise, these companies simply go into liquidation, and then reinvent themselves under another title.
I asked the Secretary of State for Transport to place in the Library copies of an operations certificate issued to Air Operations Europe. I was told that the certificate of airworthiness for the particular aircraft about which I had made inquiries
was withdrawn after problems were found during routine maintenance and the aircraft was therefore not allocated to any particular flight".


I was told that, if I wanted to know anything else, I should ask the Swedes.
I have a strange, old-fashioned idea that British Members of Parliament have the right to question the Government of the day about the safety in the air of British nationals in their own country. It is not adequate to deal with the matter by talking to the FAA or the Swedish authorities. I am happy to do so, but I am now asking the Government what they intend to do, and how.
I also asked questions about many of the countries on the FAA's list, which is, in effect, its list of forbidden countries. I asked why a country such as Ghana was receiving assistance although the FAA thought that there were problems with it. I also asked about Bulgaria, which was an education in itself. The Government acknowledged that the Department had
received 36 passenger complaints alleging various problems or deficiencies with flights using aircraft registered in Bulgaria. The Department asked the UK Civil Aviation Authority to conduct an independent assessment to ensure that International Civil Aviation Organisation standards were being applied. This assessment was carried out in February 1996".—[Official Report, 1 July 1996; Vol. 280. c. 348–49.]
That does not say whether the result was good or bad, but there are still a number of difficulties, and it is clear that a number of countries are flying aeroplanes here to pick up British holidaymakers, although there is reason to doubt that they know what they are doing and whether the holidaymakers are being carried in all safety.
I have a number of urgent things to ask the Government. I want them to take immediate action on air audits. We must know whether the pilots of foreign aircraft are complying with the correct safety rules, whether they fly when suffering from fatigue, how many hours they fly, and whether they are safely in control of the aircraft. Holidaymakers must know that a foreign aircraft is insured to the same level as a British one, and offers the same protection. It is no good demanding that when it is too late, and when passengers have been put in a highly dangerous situation.
Furthermore, the Government must revise their attitude towards spot checks, almost irrespective of an aeroplane's country of origin. If we know that aircraft are flying in and out of this country without returning to their country of origin for checks, we must ensure that we do the work that should be done in the country of origin.
It is absolutely essential that we give holidaymakers the right to ask for their money back if, when they arrive at an airport, they are offered an aeroplane that does not comply with the information given to them at the time of booking. At the time of booking, people should be told the flight, the carrier and the conditions under which they are to fly. Such matters cannot be got ignored by saying that we are party to international rules, and that, if we comply with them, everything is being done to protect British holidaymakers.
There has been an enormous burgeoning of cheap holidays—more and more people are flying around the globe on holiday with their families. This means that many companies are moving in on this trade, without providing the proper protection. They are prepared to break the law, to use crews who do not speak English, and sometimes to put pressure on the air traffic control

services. This will not do. The Minister is looking at his watch, because he thinks that I am being ungenerous in not leaving him more time.
In view of the questions that I have been asking and the pressure that I have been putting on the Department of Transport, the Government have known for three months how concerned I have been. Even so, they managed to reply to my initial letter, sent on 23 April, only this morning. If that is an indication of the urgency with which the Government intend to address the problem, all that is left for individual Members of Parliament to do is to make public our very real fears about the way in which British holidaymakers are being carried abroad—in what may be sub-standard aircraft on substandard tours. I do not want this situation to continue. We must protect our holidaymakers on every holiday.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), with her customary perceptiveness, notes that I am concerned about the time I have available to respond to the points she has made. She knows very well that, the longer she talks, the less time I have to reply. If there are items with which I am not able to deal fully, I shall write to her. I will write to her on the Balkan Bulgarian Airlines issue.
The most recent check on Ghana Airways was on 16 May. Standards on one or two on-board safety items only just met International Civil Aviation Organisation standards, but they were not sufficiently worrying for the aeroplane concerned to warrant detention. If the hon. Lady wants to ask further questions about that, or about any of the other issues she raised, I shall be happy for her to do so.
I rather agree with the hon. Lady on Air Ops. If there is a disparity between the place of registration of the airline and its principal centre of operations, we must be satisfied that that does not allow lower standards than should apply to such an operation. I note the hon. Lady's points on that.
The hon. Lady is rightly concerned about holidaymakers travelling on chartered foreign aircraft. Last year, more than 30 million passengers were carried on all charters from the United Kingdom—an increase of 40 per cent. over the past four years. Around 86 per cent. of those passengers were carried by UK airlines, a fairly constant share.
There is no evidence that the proportion of charter passengers carried by foreign airlines has increased. Of course, the absolute number has increased as the total demand has risen, but I do not consider that this need be a cause for concern. Many of the airlines taking holiday tours and many of the aircraft used are regularly involved in other air services, such as scheduled flights to and from the United Kingdom.
Flying on foreign aircraft does not mean flying on unsafe aircraft. Foreign aircraft, like British aircraft, are subject to internationally agreed safety controls and standards. I should like to take a few minutes to describe the safety system under which international aviation operates.
The fundamental basis, as the hon. Lady suggests, is the International Civil Aviation Organisation—ICAO. The signatories to it accept and comply with the annexes


to the Chicago convention, which establishes a number of minimum standards for the safe operation of aircraft. The system of mutual interdependence is reinforced by specific articles in the convention, including an obligation that states will accept certificates and licences provided by another state, as long as ICAO safety standards are being met by that state.
The hon. Lady made great play of the Federal Aviation Administration investigations. I make it clear to her that the ICAO system is the only practical and sensible way in which international aviation can operate. It would simply not be practicable for every state to check every flight entering its borders against its own national standards. However, that does not preclude a state making checks if it has grounds to question whether the ICAO safety standards are being met. If states have no evidence, they have no right to make checks, which is a clearly established principle.
So we have an international system, which we firmly believe is the only practicable basis for organising safety worldwide, backed up by domestic legislation in the UK. That legislation provides that, with the exception of European Economic Area airlines performing intra-EEA flights, which do not need a permit, all other airlines wishing to perform a public transport service to or from the United Kingdom must obtain a permit from the Department. Before that permit is granted, we must be satisfied on a number of points.
The key points are as follows. First, has the airline been approved by its authorities as being competent to operate the type of flight concerned? Secondly, has the aircraft been certified as airworthy by the aeronautical authority of the country of registration? Thirdly, does the airline have adequate insurance?
Confirmation of those points is normally obtained by the airline submitting appropriate documentation. If we have any doubts about whether the documents are valid or whether they are issued on the basis of ICAO standards, we do not issue a permit until those doubts have been resolved. That may mean that we have to consult the authorities in the country concerned, or we may ask the Civil Aviation Authority to visit the country to clarify safety oversight procedures.
Once a permit has been granted, we continue to monitor the safety standards of the airline and the country concerned. If we have evidence to suggest that safety standards may no longer be meeting ICAO requirements, my Department makes the appropriate checks. Again, that may mean consulting the overseas authority, but the Department may also ask the Civil Aviation Authority to conduct a physical inspection of aircraft at a UK airport.

Mrs. Dunwoody: How often?

Mr. Norris: If such checks reveal serious safety concerns, the authority can detain the aircraft, and the Department can withhold permits. The hon. Lady asks how often inspections are carried out. If she had been listening to what I have been saying, she would have known that the instigation for such inspections is the one I have just outlined. Incidentally, I note in the 1996–97 programme inspections of Nigeria Airways, Viasa of Venezuela, Ghana Airways, Air Zimbabwe, Cameroon Airlines and Syrian Arab Airlines. If the hon. Lady wants evidence of any further inspections, I shall be happy to provide it.
The procedures apply to holiday flights involving foreign aircraft, just as they do to other flights. There are three ways in which foreign aircraft may be involved. First, a foreign airline may offer a flight directly to the public to its own country. Secondly, a UK airline may lease a foreign aircraft for a holiday flight. Thirdly, tour operators may charter foreign aircraft for flights between the United Kingdom and a country that is not that aircraft's country of registration—so-called fifth freedom charters. My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping announced on 19 June the results of a review of these fifth freedom operations, and I will return to that in a second. I emphasise that all these flights are equally subject to the safety procedures I have just outlined.
As UK operators are subject also to certain European legislation, there are additional procedures to be followed for flights involving foreign aircraft leased with their crews to United Kingdom operators. Under EC regulations, member states are required to satisfy themselves that leased aircraft will be operating to standards equivalent to those applied to their own carriers.
UK airlines wishing to lease foreign aircraft require permission from the Department of Transport, and prior approval of the operation from the CAA. Where the CAA does not know enough about the foreign airline or about the standards imposed by its regulatory authority, it will carry out a safety audit of the carrier and the authority to satisfy itself that UK equivalent standards are being met. The cost is met by the UK airline wishing to lease the foreign-registered aircraft.
We have taken a number of steps recently to improve the effectiveness of the international system and the oversight of foreign aircraft. Some were announced by my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping on 10 January, and we have built on them subsequently. On the international front, we are assisting ICAO in the implementation of a programme to monitor member states' adherence to the ICAO safety standards.
Our latest information is that 35 states have requested ICAO teams to visit them, six of which had been visited by mid-May. CAA inspectors are due to take part in a number of forthcoming visits. This initiative is vital, because it tackles the safety problems at source; we are firmly committed to it.
We are similarly committed to European initiatives, which have been accelerated by the Puerto Plata accident in the Dominican Republic, in which a number of German holidaymakers were killed. The European Civil Aviation Conference—ECAC—is putting in place a safety assessment programme. The first priority will be to ensure that information about possible safety problems is collected and disseminated to all ECAC members to help them monitor the operation of aircraft to and from their country.
This means that, in the United Kingdom, we shall have access to more evidence about the standards of aircraft carrying our holidaymakers on which to decide whether to withhold permission for particular flights or to ask the CAA to inspect particular aircraft. It also means that ECAC will be able to put together the evidence from a wide range of sources about the way in which safety standards are being applied by foreign aeronautical authorities, and to identify states that need to be assessed in depth.
The ECAC initiative is the basis of proposals drawn up by the European Commission, which were presented to the June Transport Council. My Department took part in


the high-level group chaired by the Commission, which discussed the proposals, and will make whatever contribution it can to the further work for which the Council has called.
What about action here at home? We announced in January that we had tightened up the procedures for considering permit applications, particularly for foreign carriers wishing to operate to the United Kingdom using a leased aircraft registered in a third country. A statement is now required from the applicant setting out which airline is responsible for the safe operation of the flight, whenever aircraft leased with crew are involved.
We have increased the number of inspections of aircraft carried out by the CAA. In 1995, the authority carried out four inspections at the Department's request; so far this year, it has already carried out twice that number—eight—the last two just last week. The authority visited Bulgaria in relation to Balkan Bulgarian Airlines. We are satisfied with that country's compliance with ICAO standards and with safety oversight procedures there. Inspections can lead to aircraft being detained and permits being withheld, and although none of those we have requested this year has done so, the increased number of checks sends a clear message to all airlines flying to the United Kingdom.
I have explained that such inspections and visits can be undertaken only where there is reason to doubt that safety standards are being met. Doubts may arise from passenger complaints, for example, assessments by other countries, or the United States Federal Aviation Authority's safety assessment programme. We cannot check a whole class of flights, such as holiday charters; nor can we simply ban all aircraft from a country on the basis of unchecked reports or assessments.
I should add that the CAA does not have to wait for the Department to request an inspection if it has received information directly that leads the authority to suspect that an aircraft may be unsafe to fly—whether it is a United Kingdom aircraft or a foreign aircraft. In such cases, it can and does inspect the aircraft as quickly as possible, and grounds it if it is found to be dangerous.
Finally, I should say a word about my noble Friend's announcement about fifth freedom. We recognise concerns about safety of aircraft that have been based here, away from safety oversight in their state of registry.
As a result of a review of policy on fifth freedom charter flights from the United Kingdom, we announced on 19 June that, from 1 August this year, the relevant number of fifth freedom passenger charter flights that any one carrier can operate in any one season will be limited to 10 return flights. One effect of that new rule will be to make it less attractive for non-EU airlines—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Time is up.

Beef Ban

1 pm

Mr. Graham Riddick: I welcome the opportunity to initiate a debate on the European Union ban on beef exports. When I spoke in the two-day debate on 16 May, I said that the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis was a disaster for the farming industry. That disaster continues for many farmers who are struggling to keep going and plan for the future. There is, however, rather more clarity than there was seven weeks ago. The cull of cattle over 30 months is now fully under way, and there is some light at the end of the tunnel in respect of the European Union ban on beef exports.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture knows that, on five separate occasions, I have voiced my deep objections to the European Union worldwide ban on British beef exports. The Government have made it clear that they consider the ban illegal. I have made the point that, if we regard the worldwide ban as illegal, we should behave accordingly. The most appropriate response would be actively to promote the sale of British beef to third countries. Although we have made progress as a result of the Florence summit, we should not entirely dismiss that option, in case the EU proves rather less co-operative post-Florence than we expect it to be.
I was encouraged by the fact that, last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was able to set out a fairly specific timetable for the lifting of the export ban. Clearly, progress has been made with our European partners, and I have no doubt that the Government's policy of non-co-operation contributed to that, as it helped to concentrate minds. Without it, I have little doubt that our European partners would have maintained a complete ban on the export of British beef, with no prospect of it being lifted, if only because it helps their home farming industries.
It is somewhat ironic that the beef industries in some countries on the continent have suffered even more than our own. The EU's hasty and ill-judged ban on British beef exports contributed to the sense of crisis that has so reduced consumer confidence on the continent. However, French and Irish exporters—and no doubt others, too—are now supplying beef to many of the lucrative markets that British beef exporters have had to forgo.
Of course, we in Britain have been deeply upset by the EU ban on the export of British beef, but what has truly outraged so many people is not so much that British beef has been banned from sale to other EU member states, as that the EU has banned the sale of British beef to every other country in the rest of the world. I find that totally unacceptable.

Sir Donald Thompson: It is obnoxious.

Mr. Riddick: As my hon. Friend says, it is obnoxious, and I am pleased that the Government are challenging that aspect of the ban in the European courts. I also welcome the declaration in the presidency conclusions that the European Commission will consider any third country request for the supply of British beef.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I put on record exactly what the Florence European Council said in its presidency conclusions:


The presidency declared that if, in the meantime, a third country requests a supply of British beef exclusively for its domestic market, the request will be examined by the Commission within the overall framework after consulting the appropriate scientific and veterinary committees.

Mr. David Nicholson: Does that not suggest that we should swiftly seek evidence of progress? Do we not expect a determination in our favour by the European Court in a matter of days, or possibly a few weeks? However, my hon. Friend will know that President Mandela of South Africa is coming here next week. His visit will provide us with an opportunity to make an agreement to export beef to South Africa, and we would not expect the European Community to obstruct such an agreement.

Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has prepared the ground for what I shall say later in my speech.
I remind the House exactly what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his statement on 24 June after the Florence summit:
the Commission will consider individual requests from third countries to buy British beef exclusively for their domestic markets. If such requests come forward soon, I hope that, either through Commission procedures or the European Court case, exports from Britain to third countries will begin to flow".—[Official Report, 24 June 1996; Vol. 280, c. 22]
When I have suggested that the British Government should simply ignore the worldwide ban, the response has been that there is no demand from overseas for British beef, and no orders have been received. I am pleased to tell the House that I have here a copy of a very firm order that was received by a British firm called First City Trading from a South African company called Brito's in Cape Province for 360 tonnes of frozen beef flanks. We have great difficulty in finding markets for beef flanks. The order amounts to 120 tonnes a month for July, August and September. The total value of the order is almost £250,000.
My hon. Friend might be interested to know that, at the end of the order, the buyer adds:
For your information there is now a lot of French flanks being offered to this market as well as the normal Irish offers".
I know that First City Trading, which is based in London, has purchased some beef from traders in Yorkshire, so I hope that the order will be delivered by one of the Yorkshire meat traders.
The delivery of the order depends on the ability of the South African company to get an import licence from the South African Government. When the South Africa Agriculture Minister recently visited the country, he said:
We would like to have British beef back on our markets—safe as prescribed by British standards and by our standards.
South African vets have looked extremely closely at all the controls imposed on the beef industry, and found them extremely rigorous. They believe that British beef is safe. I am confident, therefore, that the South African Government will be prepared to grant an import licence, but it is essential that we allow the beef to be exported in the first place.
Following a little prompting from me during the debate on 16 May, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:

Although it has not happened yet. if someone comes knocking at my door to say that he has an order from a third market, of course we shall consider that."—[Official Report, 16 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 1092.]
The EU communiqué said much the same thing.
The South Africans want our beef, and believe it to he safe to eat. It is therefore a major test of the good faith of the European Commission and our European partners. If they stand in the way of the execution of export orders, they will be acting in bad faith.
The EU ban has been justified on the grounds of preventing deflections of trade—in other words, to stop exports to third countries from being re-exported back to the EU. In my view, that is disingenuous. Because of the enormous subsidy to exporters to bring the export prices down from the inflated CAP prices to world prices, elaborate systems must be undergone. Importing countries sign import entry certificates confirming that the beef is for home consumption. Furthermore, levies on imports into the European Union are higher than export refunds that exporters receive. In practice, therefore, to re-export to the EU would be costly and pointless, especially from a country as far away as South Africa.
As far as I am aware, this order is the first firm and specific one received from outside the EU since the beef crisis began. I hope and believe that the European Commission will allow it to be delivered, and that it is the beginning of the resumption of export trade, at least with third countries outside the EU.
Mr. Martin Richardson, the managing director of First City Trading Ltd., tells me that he has other customers in South Africa who would like to place orders for British beef, and that he has no doubt that he could drum up business from other countries. It is time that some semblance of normality in the export business was restored, and that Mr. Richardson and his colleagues were allowed to get on with what they know best: helping to improve Britain's balance of trade.
There is, however, one problem. First City Trading and other companies involved in the export business have been in danger of going out of business. Since taking an interest in the export business, I have been struck by how enormously complicated it is. We cannot afford to lose the expertise of people such as Mr. Richardson. Such expertise has taken some years to develop. Beef exporters are still having to take receipt of beef which was turned back from third countries before the crisis blew up.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that beef exporters have requested that they be included in the compensation scheme, and the Government need to consider that request, for two reasons. First, we do not want expertise that has been built up and encouraged by Government policy, which has provided subsidies, to disappear, because it would take a long time to rebuild.
Secondly, if the beef exporters find that they are unable to pay their export refunds, their guarantors, which are mainly banks and insurance companies, will be approached. That could have a serious effect on the confidence of banks and insurance companies in providing guarantees for any other goods under the common agricultural policy. Will my hon. Friend address that point? The simplest solution could be for the Government to buy the beef that has been returned to this country.
Getting the export ban lifted is an important part of the process of restoring full consumer confidence in British beef. There has been an increase in the use of imported


beef in this country in recent months, especially in the catering trade. Some of the farmers in my constituency have asked me, "How do we know whether beef from Argentina, Australia or Botswana is as safe and as rigorously regulated as it is in this country?" The answer is that we probably do not know.

Mr. John Sykes: Are there not vast numbers of unreported cases of BSE-infected cattle in France, Germany, Switzerland and Austria? Does that not mean, therefore, that, not only is there probably as much danger in eating European beef, but it is much safer to eat British beef, especially from Yorkshire?

Mr. Riddick: Yes, especially from Yorkshire, as my hon. Friend, who is also from Yorkshire, says. He makes his own point. Many of us in the House have suspicions that the incidence of BSE is grossly unreported on the continent, but it is obviously difficult to make that stand up.
Bearing in mind that we want to regenerate trade in this country, there is an argument for refusing to import beef from EU countries that do not have the same specified bovine offal controls as us. Will the Minister consider that?
I would also have thought that there was a strong case for imposing a ban on the importation of any beef from cattle over 30 months old. I think that I am right in saying that, at the moment, some countries are exempt from the 30-month ban, and can export to this country. Most important, we want to stimulate sales of British beef in the home market, and in particular increase the throughput of below 30-month-old cattle. Such trade is still fairly sluggish, and farmers, as my hon. Friend the Minister will know only too well, are receiving much lower prices at auction than they were before the crisis began.
When I met an auctioneer from Cornwall a few weeks ago, he impressed on me the need to introduce deficiency payments to encourage farmers to take their beasts to market and help to reduce prices—thereby stimulating sales of British beef. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) has been arguing for something similar. Such a system would encourage people to eat more beef, and would lead to fewer beasts being kept until they were 30 months old, then needlessly destroyed and wasted. I do not know whether the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has considered that, but if it has not, along with the European Commission, it should do so in detail.
When I spoke in the debate in May, I urged the Government to take swift action to get exemptions for the slower maturing breeds, and I am dismayed that there appears to have been no progress on that front.
I am glad of this opportunity to raise some of the issues concerned with the EU's worldwide ban on British beef exports. I hope that the European Commission will respond positively to the order that I have announced. If it does not, the Government will have to consider what action they can take to resume exports. Unilateral action may be necessary, but hopefully, it will not come to that.
Members of Parliament, and all those who have the interests of British farming at heart, should take every opportunity to reiterate that British beef is safe to eat. The link between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease is not

proven. The incidence of CJD is no higher in this country than in any EU country. Indeed, it is lower than in many other countries.
The measures that the Government have progressively taken, especially the ban on specified bovine offal, mean that all offal that could harbour BSE is removed from cattle at slaughter. The latest move to ban the sale of meat from animals over 30 months old is a further precaution that should reassure consumers that British beef really is safe to eat. I know that many Opposition Members do not like to send that positive message to their constituents, but Conservative Members do, and I hope that this short debate will be seen as having made a positive contribution to the future fortunes of the British beef industry.

Sir Donald Thompson: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friends the Minister and the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), for allowing me to speak. I shall make four points as briefly as I can, without being discourteous to those on whose behalf I make the points.
A farmer of mine, like many farmers in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, is a rearer of stock, and is finding it very difficult to place stock for slaughter easily and quickly. His name is Andrew Naylor, and I shall write to my hon. Friend the Minister about his difficulties, because they are very complicated. We might be talking about a farmer having problems with only two, three, four or five animals, but the problem is widespread, and concerns many millions of animals across the country. It is very difficult for such farmers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley mentioned the South African veterinarians who have monitored BSE in this country, and found that everything we have done is satisfactory. I was distressed to see on the front page of yesterday's edition of The Times that, far from monitoring what we have done and disseminating information on the action taken on BSE in this country, the European Union seems to have deliberately—

Mr. Sykes: Ignored.

Sir Donald Thompson: It has not ignored that information, as my hon. Friend says, but has suppressed its dissemination not only to the Commission but to the European Parliament. It is therefore no wonder that, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made his announcement, the European Parliament and the Commission considered it a bombshell. In fact, the introduction to the statement was careful and gentle, and full information had been given, which should have instilled confidence in the European Parliament and the Commission over the years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley mentioned exports. When we think of exports, we always think of prime steak and the roast beef of old England, but there are two very important exports on which thousands of jobs in Britain depend. One is pet food. I say "jobs in Britain", because pet food is manufactured all over the United Kingdom, and takes 60 to 80 per cent. of the European market. British pet food in cans—beef—is now prohibited, as are hamburgers and beefburgers.
For a number of technical reasons with which I shall not bore the House, it transpires that, partly because meat from young bulls is not used, British beef is the best for making hamburgers and beefburgers. As the Minister knows, hamburgers and beefburgers from reputable companies are made of top-quality meat—first-class forequarters from young animals.
That market has been strangled by the ban on exports to Europe and to the rest of the world. Like the markets that my hon. Friend mentioned, the hamburger and beefburger market is most important to all our farmers. The more quickly the illogical ban is lifted, the better.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on securing a debate on this important subject, and I have listened with great interest to the information that he has brought before the House.
The European Union ban introduced on 27 March on exports of all British beef and beef products, not only to other member states but to all third countries, was most unwelcome. More than that, it was completely unjustified—and in our view illegal, too. The ban affects a great many people in the United Kingdom. Beef farmers and many others in the industry, such as abattoir operators, transporters and meat exporters, have all found their trading opportunities greatly reduced. In many cases, that has had significant detrimental effects on their livelihoods.
In the United Kingdom, our highest priority with regard to BSE has always been the protection of public health, as my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley and for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) have both carefully explained. That is why we have had in place in the public domain for many years stringent controls, especially controls on specified bovine offals, to protect the public from any possible risk of BSE.
Only now have other member states with significant amounts of BSE in their herds started to introduce similar measures to protect their own public, and most other member states still have no similar measures in place. I do not take that situation lightly, and I am vigorously pursuing with the Commission the reality of the situation in all member states.
Of course, the rules that apply to the production of meat for the domestic market apply equally to the production of meat for export. We have in place measures to protect British consumers, which also protect consumers in our export markets. I remind the House what the chairman of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee has said as a result of the stringent controls that we have put in place:
In any common usage of the word, British beef is safe.
I hope that that fulfils the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley that we should continue to say that, and to explain the situation at every opportunity.
The chairman's view has been echoed by independent international bodies, including the World Health Organisation, the International Animal Health Organisation and the OIE—and, indeed, the Commission's own Standing Veterinary Committee.
Thus, the export ban imposed on Britain by the EU cannot be justified on public health grounds. We already have in place the measures thought by all the experts to be necessary to protect public health from the risk of BSE, both here and in our export markets.
The Government have taken vigorous action to get the export ban lifted. First, we have challenged the ban before the European Court of Justice. Our application for interim relief, for immediate suspension of the ban or elements of it, has already been heard, and our case was presented most forcefully by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. We expect to hear the results of the hearing shortly.
We have also taken a parallel approach, applying political and diplomatic pressure to have the ban lifted. In that complex technical area, it is most important that policy should go forward on an objective and scientifically justified basis. That is the basis for our domestic policy on BSE, and that is what we look for from the rest of Europe.
It was therefore most regrettable that, when the Commission put forward proposals to relax the ban on beef derivatives—proposals based clearly on advice from the Standing Veterinary Committee—they were rejected by some member states. That led to our reluctantly operating a policy of non co-operation until two specific objectives had been met—first, the lifting of the ban on beef derivatives, and secondly, the agreeing of a clear framework for the lifting of the wider ban.
I was grateful to note that the policy of non-co-operation was welcomed by my hon. Friends, and that policy has proved successful. Within a month, having seen no movement whatever in the preceding two months, we have achieved our twin objectives,
Our first objective was achieved on 10 June, when the ban on beef derivatives was lifted. On 19 June, the Standing Veterinary Committee gave unanimous approval to our plan to hasten the eradication of BSE. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 24 June, the European summit at Florence, also unanimously, accepted the framework and procedures put forward by the Commission for lifting the ban, which in turn were based closely on our own proposals.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Browning: I am sorry, but no.
One important element of the Florence agreement is that all parties agreed that, in future, steps towards lifting the ban would be taken
only and exclusively on the basis of the public health and objective scientific criteria
and of the judgment of the Commission. So we now have—

Mr. Tyler: rose—

Mrs. Browning: No, I am sorry, but I shall not give way.
So we now have a clear framework for lifting the ban. That is most welcome, and shows the way ahead to achieving the objective of lifting the ban, which I am sure is supported by everyone in the House. There are various


steps that we must achieve before the ban is removed, and we are working flat out to deliver them. Their successful operation will then be demonstrated to the Commission, which in turn will produce proposals to relax successive elements of the ban. We look to other member states then to fulfil their Florence commitments. I hope that that will meet with the approval of the House. It is important that other states keep their side of the bargain.
There are five main elements in the move towards lifting the ban. The first two constitute the removal of the ban on the export first of beef from certain certified herds, and secondly of calves born after a certain date. We regret that there has been a delay in introducing the certified herds and mature beef scheme, but I hope that we shall not have to wait much longer. SEAC has asked to consider certain aspects of the scheme, and we hope to hear the results before the week is out. When we get the green light from the committee, we shall be ready to go with the scheme as quickly as possible.
We hope to be in a position to tell the Commission that we have met the necessary conditions on those elements by October. We have completed public consultation on the beef assurance scheme, and we shall introduce it as soon as possible. We also need to clear the backlog of animals awaiting slaughter in the 30-months-plus scheme, and to start the accelerated slaughter of cattle especially at risk of developing BSE. We are well advanced with both. By the end of this week, more than 200,000 animals will have come through the 30-months-plus scheme, and we shall issue a paper today beginning a seven-day consultation on the accelerated slaughter scheme.
Removal of the ban in those first two areas would reopen an export market worth initially about £100 million a year, and the value should increase rapidly thereafter as the certified herd scheme gains momentum. Also by October, we look to the Commission to come forward with proposals for relaxing the ban on the export of embryos, subject to the advice of the Standing Veterinary Committee.
The fourth and most significant element is the removal of the ban on the export of meat from all animals under the age of 30 months. That is, of course, the beef that we

most readily and enjoyably eat here in Britain. We should be in a position to meet the necessary conditions to lift that element of the ban by November.
It is evident that there are many countries, not only in Europe but all over the world—my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley mentioned South Africa—with which we have enjoyed good trading relationships and to which we have exported our excellent beef, sometimes in large amounts, in the past. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has brought to the House tangible evidence of other countries' determination to reinstate their imports of British beef.
As my hon. Friend will know, the Prime Minister secured the agreement of the other Heads of Government that the Commission should be required to consider individual requests from third countries to buy British beef exclusively for their domestic markets. We know that not only South Africa but other countries want to do that. In particular, we have been discussing with the South African Government the conditions that would satisfy them so that they would allow British beef to be sold there.
I assure my hon. Friend that the order that he has brought to the attention of the House will immediately become part of the subject matter of those discussions. We shall not rest until we have given the South African Government all the further help they need to reassure them about any elements on which they require further information. I hope that this order will be one of many from countries seeking to re-establish their market with the United Kingdom.
Restoring the beef trade is extremely important, but I cannot give the House assurances about compensation for those people who have had stocks returned from abroad. They will know that Coopers and Lybrand's second report has been published. We are helping those concerned with the disposal of such stocks but, regrettably, I cannot offer compensation in terms of reimbursement.
It is important that we re-establish the sale of British beef, both domestically and abroad. We are doing well in the sale of hindquarters in the UK, and we are pressing on with policies to try to promote the sale of forequarters at home. Equally important is the issue of third-country exports, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley for bringing this important information and order to the Floor of the House.

Energy Conservation

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the subject of the Government's energy conservation programme—the second time I have raised this topic on the Adjournment. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), replied to a similar debate in February 1995.
I am raising the matter again to review the various Government schemes, to point out apparent shortfalls and to seek assurances from the Minister that the Government are still committed to those policies and will continue to work towards achieving their objectives. Last February, the Under-Secretary's reply did not address the figures that I presented, showing shortfalls in most of the Government's targets. Indeed, Peter Smith—the chairman of the Royal Institute of British Architects energy and environment committee—wrote to me to say that he wished that the quality of the questions had been matched by the quality of answers. I am pleased to see the Minister of State in his place, and that gives me more confidence that the issue will be addressed properly this year.
I am also pleased at the timing that I have achieved. For once, I have got it right. The debate is being held on the day the United Kingdom report comes out, and the comments of the Secretary of State have been widely reported in the press. I have provided the Minister with a summary of the points that I intend to make and the questions that I intend to raise, and I look forward to his answers.
First, I wish to examine the progress that has been made in each of the schemes in the climate change programme. No discussion of this programme could proceed without mentioning the Energy Saving Trust. Last year, I pointed out that only 10 per cent. of the trust's originally projected funding was likely to be available, and it expected to make only 10 per cent. of the energy savings—and hence carbon dioxide reductions—that it originally intended to deliver. I tabled parliamentary questions on the matter earlier this year and, sadly, the story has not changed. The trust is underfunded, and is expected to save only 0.3 million tonnes of carbon—a reduction from the original target of 2.5 million tonnes.
This year's figures show that no progress has been made on last year's figures, despite an assurance given in last year's debate that the Government's new powers to contribute to the trust's running costs represented
an important first step in establishing funding for the trust and the schemes that it brings forward."—[Official Report,17 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 1314.]
I hope that the Minister can tell us more about some of the schemes.
Last year, I stated that I was pleased that VAT was not raised to 17.5 per cent., as the Government had intended. Apart from breaking their election promises, I felt that the increased fuel poverty that that would bring was totally unacceptable. However, as I said last year, the Government must address the hole that their defeat on VAT has left in the carbon dioxide programme. In addition, how are the promised reductions in prices that the Government are using to sweeten the planned nuclear sell-off expected to affect carbon dioxide emissions? The DTI's annual report on energy states specifically that a

10 per cent. drop in fuel prices tends to lead to an increase in consumption of between 2 and 3 per cent. Do the Government have any programmes to address that?
These two policies were originally intended to provide 40 per cent. of the climate change programme, yet they have not been implemented in full. Consequently, the Government's commitment to energy saving has to be questioned. Energy Paper 65 may claim that we will reach our carbon dioxide targets despite this—something that I still doubt and will address later—but the Government's two main policies to reduce energy usage have not worked. I would like the Minister to admit that, and accept that, if both policies have failed, new ones must be implemented in their place.
It is not just those two policies that have failed. The Government have long said that the public sector should lead the way with energy savings and should demonstrate what can be achieved. Government Departments and health authorities were set a target of reducing energy usage by 15 per cent. in the five years up to 1995–96. Last year, I pointed out that—after four years of the project—things were not looking good.
At that stage, health authorities had delivered only 7.9 per cent. of the savings, and some Departments were not even producing figures. One year on, my prediction that the NHS would fail to meet its target has been borne out. According to a parliamentary answer on 9 January, the 7.9 per cent. savings figure that I quoted last year has been revised to 6.5 per cent. The Minister for Health himself has said that, by 1996, savings are expected to be 8.3 per cent.
Other Departments are not doing much better. By 1993–94—three years into the programme—Departments had achieved only 6 per cent. savings on average. Again, that falls far short of the target. Some Departments have not shown a serious commitment to the targets and, if they are supposed to be setting an example, they are leaving a lot to be desired. It is simply not good enough, and it is not just a case of the public sector setting an example. Energy efficiency measures save money. Why should we be cutting services to reduce Government spending when we could be cutting energy use in the public sector? I hope that the Minister will tell us how he plans to improve performance, and will give an assurance that Departments will take the new targets of 20 per cent. savings between 1990 and 2000 a little more seriously than they took the previous ones.
Last year, I used figures from parliamentary questions to show that progress towards the target of 1,500 MW of new renewable generating capacity was falling behind. The figures showed that 74 MW of new capacity was coming on line each year, against a target of 150 MW. Updated information has shown that this trend has continued. Between the end of 1993 and the end of 1995—the most recent figures available—the rate slowed further, to only 45 MW of new capacity each year. I have been assured that contracts are in place to enable the targets to be reached, and that the rate of new renewable capacity coming on line is increasing. I hope that the Minister can confirm that, and I hope that he will reconfirm the Government's commitment to those targets.
For combined heat and power plant, the target required an average of 300 MW of new capacity each year. Last year, I calculated that the rate so far had been 200 MW. I am pleased to say that, one year on, the situation is


improving. Last year, 400 MW of combined heat and power came on line, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that the rate of growth of CHP will continue and that the Government are still committed to the target of 5,000 MW by 2000. The rate will need to increase further if the shortfall from earlier years is to be overcome. I will be delighted if the Minister will confirm that that will happen.
Another policy set out in the climate change programme was the improvement in the building regulations, which came in a year late but is now in force. The regulations do not yet apply in Scotland. I know that this is beyond the remit of the Minister, but if he is aware of any plans to extend the regulations across the whole of the United Kingdom, I hope that he will tell us in his reply.
The original climate change programme also claimed that new standards would be introduced for improving the efficiency of domestic appliances by 10 per cent. by 1997 and 40 per cent. by 2000. I have tabled several parliamentary questions on that statement, but have never received an assurance that the 40 per cent. target still exists. I understand that the standards being adopted for fridges and freezers will give a 15 per cent. saving. Further measures are under discussion. Reading between the lines, it appears that the 40 per cent. target has been abandoned. I hope that the Minister can tell us the Government's present thinking on that. If the target is now considered impossible, what energy saving does he expect to be delivered? I look forward to his reply.
I am fully aware that, according to Energy Paper 65, the United Kingdom will manage to achieve the carbon dioxide targets. Last year's debate took place before publication of that paper, and I commented then on the likelihood of it making that claim. The Government increased the prediction of how many gas-fired and nuclear power stations would be on stream by 2000. Those predictions are very optimistic, with a great reliance on elderly Magnox stations and gas-fired stations that have only recently passed the first stage of planning permission.
I am not the only one who sees problems ahead. DRI McGraw-Hill calculated that the United Kingdom's carbon dioxide emissions would increase up to 2000. More recently, stories in the press have shown discrepancies between European Union predictions of emissions in 2000 and those of the International Energy Agency. Interestingly, none of the independent studies casts the United Kingdom's emissions in quite the same light as Energy Paper 65. Predictably, EP65 is far more optimistic than any of the independent reports.
Such discrepancies lead me to believe that our carbon dioxide emissions should be monitored independently, with reports presented in the House. Although I am happy to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate every year, scrutiny should be more rigorous and Ministers should be more accountable for the programme. I hope that the Minister will deal with that in his reply.
I also hope that the Minister will accept that the climate change programme set out to meet the Rio targets should still be carried out. The energy-saving measures that it set out are an important step towards improving energy efficiency. They should be not abandoned, but expanded.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government remain committed to the targets set out in the climate change programme.
Having run through a review of the Government's policies, I will suggest how energy efficiency could be promoted. I am firmly of the opinion that our carbon dioxide targets will not be met, so I hope the Minister will take these suggestions seriously. I hope that he will ensure that the Government reduce the rate of value added tax on energy-saving materials. The Paymaster General promised to consider ways to do so on Third Reading of the Finance Bill. The Government narrowly won the vote, but in a recent answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), they seemed to be backing away from that promise. That one measure would kick-start sales of energy-saving products, giving the market a much-needed boost. It would also remove the anomaly that was pointed out by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), that energy saving was taxed at a far higher rate than energy use.
I also welcome the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which is now in force. The Minister can do two things to strengthen that Act. First, I hope that he will ensure the speedy passage of the Energy Conservation Bill, which sensibly extends the Act. Secondly, I hope that he will consider local authorities' concerns that the £3 million given to them this year under the new burdens procedure has not been confirmed for future years. That money was to assist local authorities with the preparation of reports under the Act, and its withdrawal will make life difficult for councils. I hope that the Minister can confirm that that extra money will be forthcoming, as I have heard rumblings that the Department of the Environment is trying to withdraw it—rumblings that I hope the Minister will squash in his reply.
The Minister should also reinstate the £31 million removed from the home energy efficiency scheme budget. That was taken despite promises from Ministers that the level of funding was fixed for three years. The removal of that money has restricted the number of houses that can be insulated and will have pretty dismal effects on businesses that had expanded to do the installation work. They had planned to carry out £100 million-worth of spending under the scheme. By reneging on that promise, the Government have left some of them having to lay off staff and sell equipment that is no longer required as demand for work dries up.
The Minister is both knowledgeable and committed to energy efficiency. I was disappointed with the reply to the debate last year and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will shed a little more light on the Government's position and direction than his colleague did last year. In the light of the reports in the press today, I am compelled to say that, if the Secretary of State is going to Geneva to wave the flag on energy conservation in the wider world—I sincerely hope that he will do that—he will not be credible unless he can show a genuine commitment to the domestic policies that are supposed to be in place to honour the commitments that we have already given. Rhetoric is not enough, and it simply will not do.

The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East


(Mr. Ainsworth) on once again selecting this subject for discussion. We go back a long way in our interest in it and I certainly welcome the opportunity to exchange views on the subject in this domain as opposed to our previous one. The hon. Gentleman had a long list of questions, a number of demands that would knock holes in the income side of the Government's accounts, and a raft of proposals that would extend expenditure commitments. My eyesight may be failing, but I do not see alongside him any bag of gold provided by his right hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). Judging by the various things the right hon. Gentleman has said, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not have much influence with those on the Labour Front Bench.
I can reassure the House that this Government remain whole-heartedly committed to promoting energy efficiency. It is an important issue globally, as the hon. Gentleman and I recognise, and a cornerstone of the United Kingdom's climate change programme and sustainable development strategy.
I am pleased to report that the UK is on target to meet its commitment to return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000: we expect carbon dioxide emissions to be between 4 and 8 per cent. below 1990 levels. That achievement reflects the impact of the whole package of measures set out in the UK climate change programme.
The hon. Gentleman cited some European data to raise questions. The Commission's estimates would suggest for the EU a 3 per cent. overshoot, but those are econometric projections and take no account of implemented or planned actions to limit or reduce emissions. They are based on modelling exercises, which appear likely to overestimate emissions. Member states' projections are more likely to be accurate than those of the Commission. Moreover, the Commission's approach takes no account of one crucial fact: member states do not simply undertake modelling exercises, but are obliged to take corrective action if, on the basis of actual emission trends and future projections, they consider that they are no longer on course to meet their climate change commitments for 2000.
I do not want to seem to be saying that we are complacent. It is clear that further commitments are needed to combat climate change—not least in the light of the report that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published yesterday, reviewing the potential effects of climate change in the UK.
Internationally, the UK is calling on all developed countries to agree a new target to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions to between 5 and 10 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010—a challenging, but achievable, target that demonstrates the UK's continuing commitment.
Environmental issues, however important, are not the only driver behind energy efficiency. There are real opportunities for British business and domestic customers alike to save money. That has to be a powerful incentive—indeed, it has been described as the win-win scenario. I believe that there is also an important chance for British businesses to improve their environmental image and their competitive position.
No Government could rely entirely on legislation for improved energy efficiency. In some limited cases—for example, building regulations and energy efficiency standards for consumer products to which the hon. Gentleman referred—regulation is an appropriate way to make progress, but in general, Governments need to use a different, and wider, range of tools.
In large part, improved energy efficiency means influencing people's behaviour. We need—and have—a comprehensive package of measures to alert people to all the benefits of energy efficiency; to give them the technical information to decide what to do, and what it is worth to them; and to encourage market forces to operate, so that consumers can invest wisely in energy efficiency improvements.
That approach is fully in line with our deregulation initiative, which is not about "tearing up regulations" but about avoiding inappropriate regulations in the first place. It may be harder work for the Government to operate information and publicity campaigns than to make regulations, but I believe that it is more effective, and cheaper for those affected.
We provide a wide range of information for all types of consumers. In particular, we provide detailed technical information on energy efficiency technologies and their potential to generate energy and money savings. That information, which is generated by the energy efficiency best practice programme, is directly applicable to "energy professionals"—architects, process managers, building services people, and so on. It also helps us to develop our own policy.
The best practice programme is highly effective. Our research shows that, by December 1995, it was stimulating investment by business to generate energy savings worth some £450 million a year, at a cost to the Government of less than £20 million a year. That is a pretty good gearing ratio and is well on course to meet the programme's target of generating £800 million a year in savings by the year 2000.
For business, we believe it is important that senior management should take the lead by taking responsibility for energy efficiency. All the signs are that an energy-efficient business is a well-managed and therefore competitive and successful business. Certainly, the energy management performance of signatories to our Making a Corporate Commitment campaign is significantly better than that of non-participants. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East might like to know that I am persuading those who are committed to running seminars for their supply chain to get the message back down the line. That is an effective way of doing it, because, if one's biggest customer says that that is something one should do, one takes more notice.
It is not enough for us to badger consumers. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Government also need to take a lead on energy efficiency. We have set specific targets for the Government estate—a 15 per cent. improvement by March 1996. The latest figures we have published, for 1993–94, show a 6 per cent. improvement over 1990–91. That is good progress, because one faces other problems in terms of increasing demands for energy—for example, through increasing reliance on office machinery. That, in turn, is a challenge for the manufacturers of computers and other equipment. They must try to improve energy efficiency. There is also the need for the right ambience, which is a problem in energy consumption.
I hope to publish the figures for 1994–95 shortly. We are currently discussing what further targets should be set for the period up to 2000. Progress continues to be reviewed at regular meetings of Departments' Green Ministers.
The Government are also taking the lead in new and more energy-efficient ways of supplying consumer needs. We are widely promoting combined heat and power, in the public and private sectors, and setting an example by installing it in Government property: for example—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of this—in the Whitehall district heating scheme, and in my Department's new headquarters.
We set a target, in the climate change programme, of 5,000 MW of installed CHP capacity by the year 2000. We have already achieved a total installed capacity of about 3,500 MW—5 per cent. of United Kingdom electricity generation—on around 1,300 sites.
To take that further, our UK strategy for combined heat and power was launched a few days ago. That is intended for a broad audience, including both the wider public sector as well as industry. It records what we are doing to achieve our target, sets out our plans, and makes clear the wider context in which our policy is operating.
In general, we believe that, since investment in energy efficiency is highly cost-effective for consumers, with short payback periods, Government money should not be used directly to fund energy efficiency improvements. However, there are some areas where we are satisfied that Government funding is justified to overcome barriers to energy efficiency.
The home energy efficiency scheme is an important way of helping the fuel poor—those who cannot readily afford to make home improvements—by providing advice and grants for insulation and draught-proofing. It improves living conditions, and helps to save energy.
We are continuing to refine the scheme, to ensure that it is targeted to where it can do most good. That is why, although we were not able to maintain the budget for HEES last autumn, we ensured that grants would continue to be available, in full, to those in the greatest need.
We recently issued a consultation paper on ways of developing HEES. Our intention is to increase choice for eligible householders, by making the scheme less prescriptive and more flexible. We can do that by linking the grant-aided measures available more closely to the energy standards of people's homes. HEES is already good value for money, and we want to continue to secure the maximum benefit for every pound spent, whether the benefit is expressed in economic, social or environmental terms.
The Government are not the only player in relation to energy efficiency. We are also working to encourage others. The hon. Gentleman cited the Energy Saving Trust, which, in particular, represents an important partnership between energy suppliers, the energy efficiency industry and the Government, in promoting energy efficiency, recognising that all those parties have a role to play. The trust is a catalyst for the promotion of energy efficiency, with the aim of bringing about self-sustaining markets for energy-efficient goods and services, particularly in the developing competitive energy markets.
The role of the trust has continued to evolve. The Government are now providing funding of up to £50 million from 1996 to 1999 to enable the trust to develop a programme of work, to assist the market to

work in the interests of customers. A key feature is the development of partnerships which will bring in funding from third parties: Government money being used to maximum advantage, to kick-start initiatives which should become self-financing. I am pleased to say that the work programme, launched in April, is developing well, and will continue to contribute to further savings in carbon dioxide emissions.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) to amend the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, in particular to add houses in multiple occupation to the definition of residential accommodation, and thus require local authorities to identify and report on energy conservation measures for such houses too. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government support that Bill, and I am glad that it is making good progress.
The hon. Gentleman referred to VAT. He will know that that subject has been raised on a number of occasions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. The Government's long-standing policy is one of a simple taxation system, with just the standard rate of VAT operating in conjunction with the zero rate. The 8 per cent. reduced rate for domestic fuel and power is the exception. Long-term retention of that, as the hon. Gentleman will know, was not of the Government's choosing. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend has no intention of extending that unique reduced rate to other areas of spending.
My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has set out the Government's view that, notwithstanding all the arguments made by the energy efficiency industry, it would be difficult to set a special rate for energy-saving products. To try to do so might well achieve little and would certainly complicate the operation and administration of the tax. There seems little doubt that it would give rise to disputes about the energy-efficient qualities of various products—about the boundaries between those goods and services that should and should not be included.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the costs to local authorities of implementing the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. The specific new duty on local authorities is to prepare one energy conservation report covering relevant properties in their area, and £3 million has been made available for that purpose under the new burdens procedure.
Future work under the Act will take the form of updates to energy conservation reports. That will form part of the existing housing investment programme process, which is, of course, an exercise that local authorities already have to go through and are well geared up to carry out. The alignment of the process with HIP was specifically designed to minimise the extra work for them.
The new burdens procedure is designed to meet the cost of new activities, but it does not involve new money. Specifically, it means that, within the Department of the Environment's budgets, if we were to agree to providing further resources to local authorities in relation to the Act, it could come about only by our finding savings elsewhere within the energy efficiency budget. We can only switch resources from one programme to another.
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has not sought to challenge the actions we are taking to improve energy efficiency. He has suggested a number of ways in which


he believes that we should do more and said that more resources should be committed to it. I have to say that, however much I might agree with him in principle, budgets are not unlimited. One of the hard jobs of being in government is to make difficult decisions about conflicting priorities.
We remain fully committed to tight control of public expenditure, and spending on energy efficiency has to compete with a wide range of other priorities. We have to make judgments about what is affordable. We have some scope for redeploying uncommitted resources among different parts of my Department's programme, but new resources can only be sought via the annual public expenditure survey discussions.
I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern about the reduction in the HEES budget, but I can only say that future levels of funding have to be determined annually, via the public expenditure survey.
The hon. Gentleman has raised many issues and has expected me to compress my answers into a short time. This is an important subject and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment to it. He should rest assured that the Government in general, and I in particular, remain as committed as ever.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Inward Investment

Mr. Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the level of inward investment into Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [34170]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): In the year to March 1996, Locate in Scotland and the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department helped to attract 84 inward investment projects to Scotland involving planned investment of nearly £1 billion and the expected creation or safeguarding of a record 12,560 jobs.

Mr. Stewart: Is not the Government's outstanding record on inward investment, about which we have just heard, due in large measure to consistency of policy and the ability of my hon. Friend and his colleagues to make decisions about Scotland in Scotland? What does he think would happen if the present Scottish Office team were replaced by a bunch of puppets who would do every U-turn at the behest and whim of Islington spin doctors?

Mr. Kynoch: There is no doubt that my hon. Friend is correct in saying that speedy decision-making is critical in the process of attracting inward investment. Equally, it is critical to ensure that we have the right business environment in which inward and indigenous investors can thrive. The one thing that is absolutely certain is that the Opposition's proposal for a tartan tax in Scotland, whether by referendum or otherwise, whereby Scotland will be taxed at a higher rate than the rest of the United Kingdom, is bound to influence inward and indigenous investors.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Although the Minister has little experience of success in business, would he care to comment on Professor Hood's statement that a Scottish Parliament would have no impact at all on inward investment to Scotland?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is an expert in acrobatics, supporting something which in the past he was against. Tax is bound to be an important element in any equation for a potential inward investor, and if the taxation rate in Scotland were higher than that in the rest of the United Kingdom, and if other Opposition policies were brought into being, such as the social chapter or the minimum wage, that would all contribute towards a reduction in inward investment and in investment in Scotland, and that would be bad news for Scotland.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when overseas companies consider inward investment into Scotland, one of the factors they have to consider is political stability—the fact that Scots can be Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries and Home Secretaries and can occupy any Front-Bench post—and the fact that the

Government have no plans to put all that at risk with madcap policies that are unworkable, unsaleable in England and dangerous for the United Kingdom's unity?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that he will have read in The Sunday Times an article concerning an Edinburgh fund management company, Stewart Ivory, which has already said that the uncertainty caused by the fear of a tartan tax in Scotland has been sufficient to persuade investors from south of the border not to invest in Scotland. I am sure that that view is alive in business, but it is one on which the Opposition seem slow to pick up.

Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister accept that perhaps the most important attraction for inward investment is the access that locating in Scotland gives to markets in the European Union, and that incalculable harm may be done to that if the Conservative party continues its anti-European rhetoric and if his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes petty points about flying European flags and sits on the Treasury Bench giving tacit encouragement to Conservative Back Benchers introducing Bills to dissociate us from the European Court of Justice?

Mr. Kynoch: I understand that the hon. Gentleman supports the introduction of a social chapter. That would be incredibly damaging for United Kingdom business, and particularly for Scottish business. The minimum wage would also be counter-productive. The hon. Gentleman's party is rather more honest and straightforward than the official Opposition, as it apparently does not need a referendum to tell the people of Scotland that it believes that taxation in Scotland should be increased beyond that of the rest of the United Kingdom, which would definitely be counter-productive for business in Scotland and for inward investment into Scotland.

Mr. Sykes: My company used to have a factory in Glasgow and a depot in Edinburgh, and they were successful enterprises up there, but if we had had a minimum wage, the social chapter, the 48-hour week, the tartan tax and a Scottish Parliament, we would have had to close both down and withdraw back to England.

Mr. Kynoch: I am pleased to hear that; it is confirmation of the message that I have been getting from the many businesses around the country that I visit. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman had read The Scotsman, he would have seen an article about Scottish and Newcastle plc, whose chief executive, Brian Stewart, has indicated that devolution for Scotland would be "bad and disruptive commercially." That is a view with which I am sure my hon. Friend agrees.

Mr. McFall: I challenge the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) outwith the Chamber to call me a puppet. The puppets are there, on the Government Front Bench, who are allowing their colleagues in England to try to absorb Locate in Scotland into Invest in Britain. Will the Minister fight on that? Does he not realise that companies such as Quintiles and Chunghwa have said that devolution and the tartan tax threat played no part in their decision to locate in Scotland, but that what did play a


part was a good, educated and trained work force, the product of good local Labour authorities, a tradition that we shall continue with a Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Kynoch: It is interesting to see how touchy the hon. Gentleman is, but I am not surprised: if I were on the Opposition Front Bench and had to undertake the U-turn that they have had to undertake in the past week at the instigation of their master south of the border, I, too, would be rather touchy about such a comment.
The hon. Gentleman referred to two inward investors—Chungwa and Quintiles. He is probably referring to an answer given by Quintiles in an interview with the BBC, in which it announced its inward investment. I was there, whereas the hon. Gentleman was not. It clearly said that devolution was not the main issue and that tax was only an element. For a company such as Quintiles, and the business that it is in, it is rather more appropriate for it to be near higher education of a high standard. That is the important element for it.
For others, taxation is a very important element, as is competitiveness. The hon. Gentleman and his party do not understand what competitiveness is all about. He advocates policies—the tartan tax, the social chapter or any of the other taxation measures that have been talked about—that would be bad for business in Scotland.

Public Expenditure

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on levels of public expenditure in Scotland. [34171]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Public expenditure in areas for which I am responsible in Scotland is more than 35 per cent. higher per head of population than on the equivalent services in England.

Mr. Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend tell me what would be the impact of a Scottish Parliament on public expenditure? Would current public expenditure in Scotland be sustainable without a tartan tax, or is a tartan tax inevitable if there is a Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Forsyth: The present arrangements ensure that Scotland has about 35 per cent. more per head of population than England. Local government, for example, gets 45 per cent. more per head of population in grant than England. If a Scottish Parliament were to be established, as the constitutional unit has pointed out, there would have to be some assessment of a formula to determine the expenditure of the Scottish Parliament, which would still be decided in Westminster, where the office of Secretary of State would no longer have any meaning—if, indeed, it was in existence—and where the number of Scottish Members of Parliament would be reduced. That seems to me to be putting at risk the health service, the education service and the caring services in Scotland, but the Labour party is prepared to do that because it puts its politics and its party before the interests of its country.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State point out to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) that if we take

into account public expenditure on, for instance, the civil service, Ministry of Defence contracts and London Transport, public expenditure per capita in London and the rest of the south-east is greater than it is in Scotland? Public expenditure should be distributed throughout the United Kingdom on the basis of need rather than the mythology propagated by the hon. Member for Dover.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not agree that it should be distributed solely on the basis of need. A recent "Social Trends" survey showed that Scotland enjoys a standard of living unequalled in any other part of the United Kingdom except the south-east of England. As for his point about London, the public expenditure figures for Glasgow are even higher than those in England, but that is not a fair test. The hon. Gentleman must get his mind around the fact that public expenditure in Scotland greatly exceeds the revenue raised there. If he favours a separate parliament raising its own revenues, he must accept that we would either have to pay high tartan taxes or allow our services to be decimated. In fact, we would have to do both.

Sir Hector Monro: In a year involving an exceptionally difficult financial settlement, my right hon. Friend did a magnificent job in maintaining a high level of block grant from the Treasury. What does he think would happen if there were no Secretary of State to fight for Scotland, which is what Labour proposes?

Mr. Forsyth: I can hardly disagree with my right hon. Friend's flattering comments, but in any event he has made an important point which transcends party interests and is important to Scotland. The office of Secretary of State for Scotland is powerful in relation to Scotland and its interests. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) does not think that that is the case. He should cast his mind back to Willie Ross and other Secretaries of State for Scotland who have done a tremendous job in fighting for Scotland's interests. The hon. Gentleman would toss that aside for a pigmy parliament in Edinburgh.

Mr. Chisholm: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the principle of the Barnett formula, which determined the level of public expenditure in Scotland in relation Ito expenditure in the rest of the United Kingdom, has never been called into question in any of the last 17 years by Lady Thatcher, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) or any other Conservative politician hellbent on slashing public expenditure? Is the Conservative party now saying that Scotland gets more than its fair share, or is it simply punishing Scotland because it wants a greater say in its own affairs?

Mr. Forsyth: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his Front-Bench responsibilities. I understand that he has been put in charge of the referendum campaign in the unfortunate event of a Labour Government; I hope that he will show the same enthusiasm for a "no" vote as he did on the last occasion.
I do not wish to embarrass the hon. Gentleman further on his first day out, but when he has an opportunity to examine his brief he will discover that the Barnett formula—which gives us our share, relative to population, of any increase in English expenditure—brings Scottish


and English expenditure into line. He is advocating bringing Scottish expenditure into line with English expenditure, which must mean a tartan tax.
The point is that the existing level of expenditure has been agreed, and is historically there. If we had a parliament whose funding was determined down here, there would have to be some kind of assessment of need. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that many people in the Treasury will be delighted to hear his words, but they are not words that will ever come from the Conservative party, because we stand for Scotland's interests.

Mr. Dunn: Given that there is a link between Government income and public expenditure, will the Secretary of State confirm that we have no plans to tax 16 to 18-year-old students, to impose an employment tax or a tartan tax and, more significant for rural dwellers in Scotland, to tax the motorist?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I am proud of our record in Scotland in sending youngsters from school to higher and further education. Far more youngsters are doing that. That is one of the reasons why we commit far more resources in the settlement that we were able to achieve last year and in previous years. I can think of nothing more disastrous than a tartan tax and a teenage tax, which would remove child benefit from children over the age of 16 still in higher education, as Labour Members wish to do. That would hit Scotland harder than any other part of the United Kingdom because more of our youngsters seek the opportunity of higher and further education.

Council Housing

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about expenditure on local authority housing in Fife. [34172]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): Fife's capital allocation for 1996–97 for investment in local authority housing totals £15.5 million. It is for the council to determine its expenditure priorities.

Mr. Campbell: Does the Minister accept that that is a deeply disappointing answer to the many needy and anxious people who come to me and to other Fife Members of Parliament seeking council housing? Is he aware that the result of Government policy will be a 70 per cent. reduction in council house expenditure in real terms between 1988 and 1998? How can Fife council provide housing for people who need it and for people in north-east Fife who desperately need it?

Mr. Robertson: Fife council can provide housing if it examines imaginatively, realistically and positively the proposals for stock transfers. In that way, it will be able to access significant new sums for investment throughout Fife, particularly in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. If he is so concerned, I ask him to get in touch with Fife council as a matter of priority. I offer him

the support of my officials to discuss the issue with the council to enable it to put together a package that will achieve the investment levels that he wants.

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the change in council house expenditure and planned expenditure in real terms between 1989–90 and 1998–99. [34173]

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Planned net provision in 1998–99 for capital expenditure by local authorities on their own stock is £167 million at 1995–96 prices, compared with £208 million in 1989–90 on the same basis.

Mr. Ross: Given that council house investment declined by 32 per cent. throughout Scotland and by 43 per cent. in Dundee in 1989–1995, and that homelessness is at near record levels, will the Minister follow the recommendation of the Environment Select Committee and set up a comprehensive review of housing need in Scotland?

Mr. Robertson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that provision in Scotland for local authority housing is 25 per cent. higher than in England. All that would be put at risk with a tax-raising Scottish Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that this House would continue to vote for such substantial sums of money to go to Scottish housing with a tax-raising parliament sitting in Edinburgh?

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that he is telling councils, including Aberdeenshire council, that they must transfer council tenants to private landlords or suffer a drop in capital allocation? In Aberdeenshire, where there is no evidence of anyone willing to take over and where no tenant wishes to be transferred, is that not an unfair penalty which will simply increase the problems of homelessness which have been growing in the north-east in the past 10 years?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Capital allocations do not depend on stock transfers. I am saying to the hon. Gentleman, his council and every other council that, if they want to increase substantially investment in social housing in their regions, there is a means to do it and we will do all that we can to help them to do it, but if he is so blinkered by ideology that he will not recognise that, he must answer to his constituents.

Mr. Ian Bruce: What is the position on vacancies in local authority housing in Scotland? Is it similar to that revealed in the written answer that I received yesterday from the Department of the Environment, which said that a high number of private houses are vacant and that, with low inflation and low interest rates, there has never been a better chance for young people to buy a house? Surely the Government are giving such encouragement and we do not want to trap people in local authority houses for the rest of their lives.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and draws a pertinent comparison with England. I have encouraged local authorities to make use of their vacant


properties and will continue to do so, because while properties remain empty they are of no value to anyone—especially families who are desperate for housing.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: There were vacancies in the multi-storey block of flats that the Minister visited in Sighthill in my constituency, but when the concierge system was introduced there was great demand for those flats. Will the Minister co-operate with local authorities to introduce concierge systems for multi-storey dwellings as quickly as possible? People are entitled to peace and quiet in their homes and to be free from vandalism.

Mr. Robertson: I was most impressed by the housing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and by the positive response of tenants to the concierge arrangements and to the closed circuit television systems in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). There is no doubt that that is the way forward, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is making substantial sums available for similar systems throughout Scotland. I look forward to visiting many more estates so equipped throughout Scotland during my next two or three years in this job.

Business Rate

Mr. Gallie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on returning the setting of business rate poundage to local authorities; and if he will he make a statement. [34174]

Mr. Kynoch: The Labour party is committed to returning responsibility for the setting of business rates to local authorities.

Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the drive to a uniform business rate has been at the behest of commerce and industry in Scotland—the job creators? Does my hon. Friend further agree that the abandonment of the uniform business rate would mean job losses and company bankruptcies? That would be the Labour loss for Scotland.

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is right. Anything that affects the competitiveness of Scottish business would be bad for it and bad for employment in Scotland. Under the uniform business rate, companies have saved £1.4 billion in the five years since 1990. Returning the rate to local authority control would cost Scottish business. Coupled with the tartan tax proposed by Labour, it is no wonder that the new chairman of the Scottish chambers of commerce has stated that such a proposal is utter folly.

Mrs. Fyfe: Why should a Scottish parliament have less control over financial affairs than the smallest district council in Scotland?

Mr. Kynoch: As I understand Labour's proposals, a Scottish parliament would be responsible for raising tax. A Scottish parliament would be funded from south of the border and it is likely, according to the constitution unit, that such a parliament would have to raise taxes or make a significant reduction in services. Tax increases, coupled with any uniform business rate increase, would make Scottish business less competitive. The hon. Lady does

not understand the competitive situation of Scottish business. The sooner she does, the better for Scottish business and the Scottish economy.

Mrs. Ewing: I realise that the Minister is trying desperately to embarrass the Opposition parties, but does he agree that the uniform business rate, because of the valuation arrangements, means that small and medium-sized Scottish enterprises have been paying £1,200 million per annum more than their English counterparts? Should not that difference be immediately eradicated? It is very much a London levy.

Mr. Kynoch: As the hon. Lady knows, the valuation system is now harmonised north and south of the border.

Mrs. Ewing: indicated dissent.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Lady shakes her head. I have said on more than one occasion that if anyone can find positive evidence that the system is not harmonised, I shall be happy for the assessors to examine the situation. One problem is that local authorities in Scotland spend 30 per cent. more per head of population than their counterparts south of the border and must therefore be funded to that extent. We have achieved the level playing field north and south of the border that Scottish business wants, and it has welcomed that development. Even the Federation of Small Businesses has said that it does not want the departure from the uniform business rate that the Opposition parties are proposing.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that getting rid of the uniform business rate would be very unfair on business, which would have no say over expenditure by the local council? Is not the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) to be congratulated on admitting that a Labour-controlled council and a Labour Scottish Parliament would like to spend more and tax more?

Mr. Kynoch: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The Opposition, and particularly the Labour party, are intent on trying to find back-door ways of raising taxation so that they can spend even more. At this year's local authority budget setting, one member of the Labour party—the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who seems to be able to stick to his guns—called for an extra £395 million to be spent by local authorities. That money must come from somewhere. I suspect that the Opposition are considering all types of routes to find it, including returning control of the uniform business rate to local authorities and, of course, implementing the proposal for a tartan tax.

Mr. Kirkwood: May I focus the Minister's attention on the problems faced by small retail businesses in market towns across the length and breadth of Scotland? Irrespective of whatever changes there have been and whoever is levying the tax, there are real problems for small family businesses in market town high streets. Will the Minister examine the factors involved in levying rates to determine whether some element of the social and economic context faced by small businesses can be taken into account when setting the assessments on which they pay rates?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are currently consulting on village shops to try to help local post offices and shops in rural areas. As a part of harmonising the situation north and south of the border, rating authorities may now remit any rate in cases in which ratepayers would otherwise suffer hardship or in which it is in the interest of council taxpayers to do so. So there is some flexibility in the hands of the councils.

University Funding

Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals on the funding of Scottish universities. [34176]

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed funding with Scottish higher education principals when he addressed their annual forum dinner late last month.

Mr. Ingram: Has not the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals warned the Government that there is a funding crisis in Scottish universities? Does the Minister agree that a strong science and research base in our universities is essential for a strong manufacturing economy? If so, why have the Government continued to underfund and undermine our university base to the extent that we now face a funding crisis, and 1,000 university staff are threatened with the sack?

Mr. Robertson: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a sound scientific base is essential for a strong manufacturing bases. That is why Scotland's work force has been transformed in recent years and why the proportion of 25 to 29-year-olds with higher education qualifications living in Scotland has nearly doubled in the past 10 years—from 12.6 per cent to 23 per cent.

Mr. Tracey: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there are record numbers of students in higher education in Scotland? Can he tell the House what effect a tax-raising Scottish parliament would have on education expenditure, which is currently subsidised by taxes raised in London and in the rest of England?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: more young Scots are in higher education than ever before in our nation's history. Spending on higher education per student in Scotland is 31 per cent. higher than it is in England. Those sums would not be available for our universities with a tax-raising Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware of rising student drop-out rates—currently 17 per cent.—while student debt, on average, is 50 per cent. up on last year? Why are the Government encouraging more people to go to universities while penalising them with spiralling debt and underfunded universities and now with talk of a £500 entrance fee?

Mr. Robertson: The Scotland that the hon. Gentleman lives in is not the Scotland that I or Scottish students live in. We have more young people at university than ever before, and a higher proportion of those are from less well-off backgrounds than ever before. That is a record to

be proud of, and the hon. Gentleman does his party and his country no good in trying to talk down what is happening.

Mr. Macdonald: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Lews Castle college in my constituency on developing a new university-status degree course, the first such course to be developed in the highlands and islands network? Will he welcome this important step towards achieving the goal of a highlands and islands university?

Mr. Robertson: Yes, absolutely. I commend the college and congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has doggedly pursued the issue. We have lifted the capping on further education students in the highlands and islands as, we hope, a precursor to the establishment of a full university in the highlands and islands, which is being vigorously backed by my right hon. Friend.

Mrs. Liddell: Why is the Minister ignoring representations from Scotland's university principals, who have already made it clear that they envisage the possibility of top-up entry fees to universities? Is he not ashamed of the fact that Government policy could lead to a return to the situation in which only the children of the rich get the benefit of a university degree?

Mr. Robertson: As I said in reply to a previous question, more people from less well-off backgrounds are attending university than ever before. We will take no lectures from the hon. Lady. Since the Labour party was last in government, student numbers have doubled, spending has increased by 30 per cent. in real terms and, above all, spending is 31 per cent. higher in Scotland than in England. Does the hon. Lady really believe that that would be sustained if her party had its way?

Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister accept that the excellent reputation of Scottish universities attracts many students from Northern Ireland, which is why my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Northern Ireland constituencies are concerned about any crisis in funding for Scottish universities? Will he consider meeting his counterparts who represent English, Welsh and Northern Irish universities and making a joint representation for additional funding, bearing in mind that all universities are crying out for additional funds?

Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend has considerable freedom with the block given to him by the Treasury. Last time around, local government—unfortunately, in my opinion—took a bigger share of it than higher education. However, my right hon. Friend has met principals in Scotland, and their representations will be fed in when we discuss the allocation of next year's block.

Temazepam

Mrs. Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the measures that he has introduced to control the use of temazepam. [34178]

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The measures introduced earlier this year have had the beneficial effect of reducing the illicit supply of temazepam.

Mrs. Adams: I am extremely grateful for the measures that were taken earlier this year and I have noticed a significant reduction in the use of temazepam in my constituency, but there has been no significant reduction in the overall use of drugs. When will the Government recognise that only by tackling bad housing, high unemployment and the lack of hope among young people will we be able to tackle the drugs problem?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady raises a general issue that we have been tackling through our urban regeneration and urban aid programme, which will provide more than £86 million this year. Her constituency benefits substantially from that assistance. We want not only an integrated approach for the various services in areas of deprivation but to take every reasonable measure possible against the scourge of drug abuse.

Mr. Connarty: I share the concern about the use of class A drugs, but is the Minister aware that the retail industry, whose representatives gathered at a conference two weeks ago to be addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), is worried about drunkenness in the streets, which leads to massive retail crime, the abuse of shop assistants and trouble in neighbourhoods? When will the Minister make a proposal to ban drinking in the street before the summer turns once again into a wild west show as people wander around Scotland's communities and high streets, drinking spirits and causing mayhem among the general public?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are encouraging local authorities to propose byelaws but, in addition, the White Paper specifies that we favour the proposal to confiscate drink in public places from those who are under age.

East of Scotland Water Authority

Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money from the Government has been allocated for capital projects to the East of Scotland water authority. [34179]

Mr. Kynoch: No specific allocation is made for capital expenditure. The external financing limit for 1996–97 has been set at £87 million.

Mr. Clarke: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he aware that the delay in upgrading the Esk valley sewer is delaying developments in Midlothian? Will he, with others, provide cash to the East of Scotland water authority to allow it to upgrade that sewer?

Mr. Kynoch: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about delays on the Esk valley sewer. He should, of course, have addressed his comments to the former Labour-controlled Lothian regional council. The new East of Scotland water authority, within weeks of taking over responsibility, has initiated a private finance initiative scheme for the sewer. It is hoped that tender documents

will be issued this month, and I hope very much that work will commence by July 1998. The project is going ahead, utilising the private finance initiative, very much more quickly than it would have done under the former Lothian regional council.

Mr. George Robertson: May I remind the Minister that the East of Scotland water authority, the super-quango that has taken water functions in the east of Scotland from locally elected local government, was created in the face of a referendum in Strathclyde that showed that 97 per cent. of people opposed handing water over to the new super-quango? Will the Government recognise that they cannot demand that referendums are held on major issues and then, with the cavalier, arrogant attitude for which they have become famous, dismiss out of hand the views of the people who have had the chance to express their view through that vote?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman, I know, is a recent convert to referendums-at the instigation, I understand, of those in his party from further south. What he has not yet fully understood is that he is talking about a referendum in Strathclyde on privatisation of the water authority. We now have three manageable water authorities, which are tackling the difficult problems of providing adequate facilities for water treatment and sewage.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) asked about the Esk valley sewage scheme. Without the private finance initiative, that scheme would not go forward as quickly as it is doing. I commend the new water authorities and I believe that the consumers of Scotland welcome the fact that they are getting these facilities under this Government, whereas if Labour was in power they might have to wait for a long, long time or pay even higher tartan taxes.

Scottish Grand Committee

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee he has attended as Secretary of State for Scotland. [34180]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I shall attend my 14th sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee this Friday in Dumfries, when we shall discuss the constitution; my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will attend. This sitting replaces the one that was postponed following the Dunblane tragedy. I am sure that the whole House welcomes the fact that the Snowdrop petition, which has attracted 750,000 signatures, will be presented by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) to the House later today. I have no doubt that the House and future sittings of the Grand Committee will want to consider the issues raised.

Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend has spoken of the importance of the Scottish Grand Committee. In view of the weakening of Labour's commitment to a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers, what would be the difference between the Scottish Grand Committee and a Scottish parliament with no powers to raise tax?

Mr. Forsyth: If we were ever unfortunate enough to have a Labour Government, a Scottish Grand Committee with a Labour majority on it, using the new powers to pass legislation, would be able to do everything that a Scottish parliament could do and more, including holding to account the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, who would determine Scotland's funding, and other Ministers from both Houses of Parliament. The one thing that a Scottish Grand Committee could never do is lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom or impose a tartan tax on the Scottish people. Such a tax would mean that people earning the same wage in Scotland had smaller pay packets than those in England. That is wrong in principle and will be recognised as such throughout Scotland.

Mr. Wray: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland willing to put the subject of nuclear waste dumping in Scotland on the agenda at the next sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee? I know that he is an environmentalist—I have seen him protecting the environment by cuddling a lamb in the local rag of Milton Buchanan—so I hope that he recalls what happened when an explosion involving 2 kg of sodium and potassium in 1977 was not reported until 1995. Will he hold an emergency debate?

Mr. Forsyth: The whole point of the Scottish Grand Committee is that it provides an opportunity for hon. Members to call the Executive to account on matters affecting Scotland. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should discuss the possibility of a debate with his Front Benchers. I see no reason why the Scottish Grand Committee should not debate it, and I agree that is it a very important subject. If that happens, it may prove to be one sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee at which the hon. Gentleman does not complain afterwards that it turned out to be a press conference for the Government.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any party with a majority of Members from Scotland on the Scottish Grand Committee can enact the most controversial legislation dealing with all aspects of Scottish life and that there is no need whatever to spend any additional funds on the creation of a new Scottish parliament? Therefore, it makes no sense for the Opposition to propose additional public expenditure when the Scottish Grand Committee can do everything that they require.

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, there are costs involved in establishing a Scottish parliament, which would cost about £45 million a year to run thereafter. That would have to be paid by the Scottish people and the money could be better spent on other matters. The real danger is not just the cost, but the conflict with Westminster and the break-up of the United Kingdom. There is also a constitutional danger, which I hope will be discussed in another place this afternoon, arising from the way in which the Labour party wishes to remove the House of Lords or any second Chamber from revision of Scottish legislation. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh and cheer at that prospect, but I was taught at school that the first step towards tyranny is the establishment of unicameral government, and that the second step is the use of plebiscites in an attempt to sideline the Parliament elected by the people.

Mr. Salmond: I associate myself with what the Secretary of State said about the Snowdrop petition. Why will he not allow the Scottish Grand Committee to make any decisions? Why does everything have to be decided here? Is it because at meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee he does not have the gallery of Conservative Members representing English constituencies who come to Scottish Question Time to ask patsy questions? In so far as the Grand Committee signifies interest in Scottish affairs, will the Secretary of State explain why, between 1992 and 1995, he attended only one of its 28 sittings? Why did he attend that one and miss the other 27?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question: I did not have ministerial responsibility in Scotland. He is entitled to ask why decisions affecting Scotland cannot be made in the Scottish Grand Committee or a Scottish forum because he is a nationalist, not a Unionist. No Unionist could ever argue that case—although Opposition Members have tried to do so, which is why they have got themselves into such a shambles. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the Snowdrop petition and for the consistency that he has shown on the matter. He argues that a referendum is of no worth whatsoever unless it is on a specific proposal and unless it offers the Scottish people all the options. The difference between him and Labour Members is that he wants the break-up of the United Kingdom but they would bring about the break-up of the United Kingdom through political opportunism.

Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Scottish Grand Committee is an important, practical and sensible part of the Union? Therefore, will he congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his good sense in forcing the resignation of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who believes in all this devolution nonsense, and replacing him with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), who is a good, sound chap with a good, sound Unionist record?

Mr. Forsyth: I will not congratulate the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland on having asked the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) to resign so as not to ruin his party leader's press conference. The hon. Member for Dundee, East has always taken a principled stand on the matters in which he believes. I respect that, although I disagree with it. I agree with what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) said in an article in the Daily Express the other day. No hon. Members would condemn anyone who stood up for what they believe, which is what the hon. Member for Dundee, East has done.

Mr. McAllion: Will the Scottish Grand Committee get the opportunity to debate the rumoured return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland? Is the Minister aware that the real Stone of Destiny is already in Scotland? It has been hidden in a church in Dundee for a number of years, but security forces should realise that it has since been moved to an alternative safe place. Is he aware that the Stone of Destiny that he is intending to return to Scotland is a sham and a fake, just like his trumped-up Scottish Grand Committee, which fools no one in Scotland? When will the Government understand that the demand for


self-government in Scotland will never be satisfied until the Scottish people have a directly elected, tax-raising parliament that meets in Scotland?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues did not like the latter part of his question. The authenticity of the Stone of Destiny was investigated very carefully. The stone was subjected to a number of tests. Although files on the matter have never been released, they show that the authentic stone rests in Westminster abbey. I shall ensure that the files are released so that the hon. Gentleman may look at them. I am sure that he will have plenty of time on his hands in which to do so.

Mr. Richards: When my right hon. Friend next attends the Scottish Grand Committee, will he warn it that a parliament for Scotland and the integration of the United Kingdom into Europe, as proposed by the Labour party, would create a new danger to this country's integrity, the like of which we have not seen since the second world war?

Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is quite difficult to keep up with the changing face of the Labour party's policy on these constitutional matters, but I agree that its policies are a new danger. The idea that it is possible to have a tax-raising Parliament and maintain our present level of funding, yet lose the office of Secretary of State and our voice in Westminster through a diminution in the number of Members of Parliament, is viewed askance by most Scots and offers a new danger. In short, the position is new Labour, nae Britain.

Mr. George Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for his hospitality at lunchtime in giving party leaders in Scotland and others the chance to meet those who were bringing the Dunblane Snowdrop petition, which has been signed by 750,000 people. Parents and organisers of the campaign expect Parliament not only to accept the petition but to listen to what it proposes and to act on it urgently. I return, however, to the fray.
Nobody in Scotland is conned by the idea that a glorified Scottish Grand Committee is the answer. When he denigrates and deliberately insults the genuine, legitimate ambition of the Scottish people for devolution by referring to "a pigmy Parliament", he demeans the office that he holds and shows himself to be the ideologue for which so many people in Scotland have judged him. Why, in a press release issued in London last Tuesday, did he issue a challenge to Labour, saying
that the Scottish people should have a say in major constitutional change through a referendum",
only for him now to tell the House that any plebiscite is the first step on the road to tyranny? I fear that such double standards, more than anything that we propose, genuinely threaten this nation's unity.

Mr. Forsyth: I stand by what I have said about a referendum—unlike the hon. Gentleman, who cannot say as much. He rubbished my proposal that the Labour party should commit itself to a referendum after the introduction of legislation—

Mr. Robertson: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Forsyth: That is indeed what I said, and it is not only me who is saying it. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is inexplicably absent from our proceedings today, says the same in The Guardian today. He argues the same constitutional case: that to ask people to vote on a matter when they cannot see the whole picture in the form of a Bill that has been considered by the House is to subvert Parliament.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and his leader have been boasting about how they see a referendum as a way of getting the legislation through the House more quickly. I understand that they were advised that the referendum legislation was still on the statute book, but they were ill advised. It is not; it was repealed. A Bill would have to be taken through the House, and it would be fought every inch of the way both here and in the House of Lords. No doubt some in the House of Lords would argue that a question should be asked about removing the House of Lords from the consideration of legislation for Scotland, in which their Lordships have taken part for centuries. The hon. Gentleman should stop tinkering with our constitution for party advantage and realise that new Labour could mean nae Britain.

Prison Officers Association

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet representatives of the Prison Officers Association to discuss working conditions and future employment prospects. [34181]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has asked to meet the Scottish Prison Officers Association, and will do so on 19 July.

Mr. McKelvey: When the Minister meets Scottish prison officers, will he discuss the proposed private prison in Bowhouse in my constituency? I welcome that proposal, but I do not welcome the fact that the prison will be run privately. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Coopers and Lybrand report, which was commissioned by the Home Office and which clearly shows the appalling level of violence in private prisons in England? In one such private prison, there were 34 per cent. more assaults than in a comparable non-private prison. Will he have second thoughts about the prison being run privately, and put it into the hands of Scottish prison officers instead?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman can take it that we will ensure, through the specification, the highest standards of service in the new prison, which, as he will appreciate, will bring hundreds of jobs to his constituency—not only construction jobs but long-term jobs for the staff who will operate it. We expect that the private sector provider will recruit most of its staff in the local area. As for track records elsewhere in Britain, inspectors' reports have confirmed that private management of prisons can work well, with considerable savings to the taxpayer. None the less, the hon. Gentleman's point will be taken seriously, and we shall ensure that there are safeguards against any possibility of abuse.

Mr. Batiste: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Home Office is considering introducing a medal for prison officers to recognise exceptional bravery in the course of their work, rather similar to the police medal for exceptional bravery by police officers? Will he commit the Scottish Office to supporting that initiative?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Most certainly. I am glad to say that the Secretary of State has supported the initiative. As one who has a prison in his constituency, I have the highest regard for prison officers, who are extremely courageous in the face of adversity. The proposal is altogether wise and far-sighted.

Mr. O'Neill: I join other Members in thanking Ministers for the manner in which they handled the reception of the people from Dunblane and the Snowdrop petitioners today. They would like to see a tightening of the punishments for individuals who seek to use guns for any criminal purpose in Scotland. It should not be forgotten that, when such individuals are incarcerated, they will be in the hands of the prison officers of our country, whose morale has been dashed by the arbitrary withdrawal of parole and the like. Their job is becoming even more difficult, and there is a crisis not only of pay and conditions but of morale. The Minister must do something about that if he is to play fair by those men, who have one of the most unpleasant and difficult jobs in our country.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is correct to call for severity for offences involving firearms, and the Scottish Prison Service certainly should be strongly supported. He should not complain too much if remission for dangerous criminals is reduced in the future, as we believe that that is not an automatic right but a privilege to be earned by good behaviour. If dangerous criminals spend longer in prison as a result, there will be fewer of them in the community.

Highlands and Islands Enterprise Area

Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the economic prospects of the Highlands and Islands enterprise area. [34182]

Mr. Kynoch: They remain excellent.

Mrs. Michie: Will the Minister confirm that the Scottish Office has at last made a decision on introducing a ferry service between Campbeltown and Ballycastle? Who is to operate the service, what vessel will be used and what is the starting date? Will the Minister give as full an answer as possible? Otherwise, I may entertain the slightest suspicion that the Secretary of State will pull another rabbit out of the hat at Dumfries on Friday.

Mr. Kynoch: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady, but she has been misinformed. My right hon. Friend has said consistently that he is keen to establish the route, but significant obstacles must be overcome. He is working as best he can and as fast as he can to overcome them, and I assure the hon. Lady that we will keep her informed on his progress. Unfortunately, we do not see an announcement on a conclusion being made in the next week.

Mr. Wilson: Is not the main obstacle that Ministers must overcome their quite irrational prejudice against anything operating in the public sector? Does not everyone involved in the project—which has potential benefits for my constituency—agree that the sensible thing to do is to allow Caledonian MacBrayne to operate a vessel that it owns? It has the back-up of a fleet to provide flexibility, and it will provide jobs to Scottish seamen. The firm also has all the advantages of experience. It wants to do it, but the Government are obsessed with the idea that, unless a private sector operator can be involved—even one using a Caledonian MacBrayne vessel—the project cannot go ahead.
Will the Minister play fair with the communities involved in Northern Ireland and in the highlands and islands—and, potentially, in my constituency at Ardrossan—and allow the project to go ahead? Will Ministers get rid of their ridiculous prejudice? Never mind what the Secretary of State is telling the Minister—will he answer for himself? CalMac wants to run it, and it is best placed to do so—the Government should let it do so.

Mr. Kynoch: From the hon. Gentleman's words, it is apparent why he is no longer a transport spokesman, but perhaps that means that he can now commit his party to all sorts of expenditure proposals. The Government are adamant that we will make the right decision, and that it will be considered properly. As I said to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), the Secretary of State is trying to overcome the obstacles, and he is keen to reach as speedy a conclusion as possible.

Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that the McFadden commission's stated aim is the abolition of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the transfer of its responsibilities to a tartan tax-raising Parliament? Does he agree that that would have a calamitous effect on the highlands and islands?

Mr. Kynoch: I agree with my hon. Friend. Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise have done a remarkably good job for economic development in Scotland. I hope very much that they will continue to do so, and that they will have the full support of the Government.

Local Government Finance

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of revenue support for Scottish local government in the current year. [34183]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Local government grant support amounts to £5.4 billion in Scotland, an increase of 3.6 per cent.

Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Government spending on local government in Scotland is 43 per cent. above expenditure for England? Could that spending be sustained if Scotland had its own tax-raising Parliament? If not, how could that Parliament possibly cut taxes? Would not taxes have to increase, with the result that people north of the border would take home less than people south of the border?

Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Local authority expenditure in Scotland is 44 per cent. higher per head than in England. It is difficult to see how the Leader of the Opposition can go around Scotland suggesting that a tax-raising parliament could reduce taxes. That presupposes that Members of this House will continue to vote for 44 per cent. more in spending for Scottish local authorities than for authorities in their own constituencies, and then sit back and watch the parliament cut taxes. That is not the real world. Labour would endanger local authority expenditure and other public services by setting up a Scottish parliament with tax-raising powers. That parliament would lead to resentment on both sides of the border, which would destroy the Union that is the United Kingdom.

Dr. Reid: Would not those who devote their time and effort to local government in Scotland like nothing better than to have a parliament with which they can work,

rather than a Secretary of State and Ministers who berate them at every conceivable opportunity? Does not today's new-found concern with the House of Lords show that the Secretary of State is studying his future career pattern well, because there is no chance that he will be re-elected? May we offer a deal to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister? If they send us a big lump of stone as soon as they can, we in Scotland will agree that the Secretary of State should be incarcerated beneath a chair in Westminster abbey for ever after.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is normally a sensible chap. How on earth did he get himself into a party that is prepared to give up the office of Secretary of State, to allow a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament here and to allow hard-working Scots to pay a tartan tax and take home smaller pay packets than people in England? How on earth can he call himself a Unionist and still be involved with that rabble?

Stone of Destiny

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Stone of Destiny.
The Stone of Destiny is the most ancient symbol of Scottish kingship. It was used in the coronation of Scottish Kings until the end of the 13th century. Exactly 700 years ago, in 1296, King Edward I brought it from Scotland and housed it in Westminster abbey. It remains—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and hear this statement in good order. There will be hon. Members who will want to be called after the statement. They should listen to it now.

The Prime Minister: The stone remains the property of the Crown. I wish to inform the House that, on the advice of Her Majesty's Ministers, the Queen has agreed that the stone should be returned to Scotland. The stone will, of course, be taken to Westminster abbey to play its traditional role in the coronation ceremonies of future sovereigns of the United Kingdom.
The Stone of Destiny holds a special place in the hearts of Scots. On this the 700th anniversary of its removal from Scotland, it is appropriate to return it to its historic homeland. I am sure that the House would wish to be assured that the stone will be placed in an appropriate setting in Scotland. The Government will be consulting Scottish and Church opinion about that. The stone might be displayed in Edinburgh castle alongside the Honours of Scotland, Europe's oldest crown jewels. Alternatively, it might be appropriate to place it in St. Margaret's chapel inside the castle or in St. Giles's cathedral. There may be other options.
Once those consultations have been completed, the necessary arrangements will be made and the stone will be installed with due dignity in Scotland.

Mr. Tony Blair: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement. I am sure that it will be warmly received by people in Scotland. We know that the Stone of Destiny holds a special place in Scottish hearts after 700 years. Obviously, it is part of Scottish nationhood and, by coming back here for the coronation of our Kings and Queens, as it will, it will no doubt also be a symbol of Scotland's place within the United Kingdom. The return of the stone, therefore, is a welcome recognition of how we can celebrate the unity of the United Kingdom while being distinct and proud nations with differing traditions, histories and cultures. It is a sentiment on which we wish to build in the future—and I hope that we shall not have to wait another 700 years to do so.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the decision. I am glad that he treated the matter with the seriousness that it deserves rather than with the levity displayed by so many of his hon. Friends over a matter that will be regarded as one of great importance in Scotland.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Scone is in my constituency. The ancient capital of Scotland would be proud to have the stone back and I hope that, when consideration is given to its location, its roots will be remembered.

The Prime Minister: I have mentioned the areas to which the stone might most obviously be returned, but, in consultation, other propositions might be put forward.

Sir David Steel: May I warmly welcome the Prime Minister's decision to secure the return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland? I hope that he is under no illusion and that he recognises that it is the settled view of the majority of people in Scotland that they want not just the symbol, but the substance—the substance of the return of democratic control over our internal affairs in Scotland. May I tell the Prime Minister, before he comes north on Friday, that I hope that he will not continue to insult us by suggesting that, although other countries can organise decentralised government—most recently in Spain since the death of Franco—we are somehow incapable of doing the same in the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: First, I am grateful for the welcome that the right hon. Gentleman has given to the decision. On his second point, the right hon. Gentleman's proposal for a parliament within the United Kingdom, as the leader of the Labour party says, would mean that Her Majesty's Ministers who are not Scottish would not be able to appear in that assembly. On Friday, I shall be appearing in the Scottish Grand Committee as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, open to debate and able to be questioned by Scottish Members in Scotland. That would not be appropriate under the plans supported by the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement is of supreme importance to the Scots? The return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland will be unanimously and warmly welcomed by Scots and will highlight the close unity, tradition and good will between our two nations. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there will be an imaginative and effective ceremony for the return of the stone to Scotland, which I hope will be placed in Edinburgh castle?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend said, the Stone of Destiny is an important part of Scotland's national identity. After 700 years, it is right to recognise the importance of the stone to the Scottish nation and let it return to Scotland and remain there. Of course, we plan to hold a suitable ceremony at the time of its return and we shall be consulting Scottish opinion as to what might be appropriate.

Mr. John Maxton: Does the Prime Minister understand that those of us who believe in the establishment of a Scottish Parliament in order to ensure a modern democratic state within the United Kingdom and Scotland, do not believe that the return of a feudal, mediaeval symbol of tyranny is any more than a total irrelevance?

The Prime Minister: I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman was speaking for many Scots. They will regard what he said as churlish, not least because he is referring to an ancient symbol of Scotland that is well regarded by Scots of all political parties and none. They will be astonished to hear what a Scottish Member of Parliament had to say about one of their most ancient symbols.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people who care about the history of the United Kingdom also care about its symbols, as we care about the symbols in this place? Does he accept that most people will expect the stone to go to St. Margaret's chapel in Edinburgh castle, so that it remains within a consecrated building?

The Prime Minister: St. Margaret's chapel is one of the possible prime sites for the stone. It is a matter that will need to be the subject of consultation within Scotland. I have mentioned some of the areas that will be considered as the most obvious sites for the stone when it returns to Scotland.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept a criticism and a comment? Is he not wrong in stating that the Crown jewels of Scotland are the oldest in Europe? Is it not a fact that the oldest Crown jewels in Europe that I can recall are the St. Stephen's crown in Hungary? If I could only remember, there is actually an older Byzantine crown. I think that I am correct in saying that. I am usually correct in most of my utterances. Will he accept my comment that what the ex-leader of the Liberal party said is most important? What we want is not the symbol but the substance of independence in Scotland.

The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that it is the Labour party's policy to have independence in Scotland. Perhaps that was just a slip of the tongue. I will accept that as the case if it was. [Interruption.] No, the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) confirms that it is the policy that he and members of his party follow to have independence in Scotland. That point will have been well noted on the Conservative Benches and in many areas of Scotland.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, I recognise his expertise in these matters. I am certainly advised, as I advised the House, that these are the oldest Crown jewels in Europe. The hon. Gentleman thinks differently. We shall both be able to check. In any event, I look forward to him having the opportunity of going to Scotland to see them in situ.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend ensure the return of the touchstone of the sovereignty and independence of this distinct and proud nation through the return of the primacy and supremacy of British law over that emanating from Brussels?

The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of the House letting go of the primacy of British law.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement today, but if he had studied his constitutional and political law of Scotland, he would understand that the Stone of Destiny is not the symbol of kingship but the symbol of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, which is enunciated through the declaration of Arbroath. Like others, I argue that, while we welcome the return of this symbol of power, we want the realities of power in Scotland. It may have taken this Parliament some 668 years since the treaty of Northampton to return stolen goods to Scotland, but in actuality the people of Scotland will return to themselves the power of having their own sovereign Parliament very soon.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady also makes no secret of the fact that she wishes to see independence in Scotland. That, of course, would have a profound effect on Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that she is wrong about that. That is one of the distinct political differences between us that will no doubt be debated for some time to come. On the earlier point, I think that, constitutionally, she is wrong.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Has my right hon. Friend noted that this important announcement was greeted seriously by the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)? It was immediately denounced by a Scottish Labour Member of Parliament and most of the rest of them laughed. Does not that show what an incoherent shambles the Scottish Labour party is in?

The Prime Minister: One of the advantages of having the House televised is that people in Scotland will have seen precisely how Opposition Back Benchers—not Front Benchers; on this occasion I am pleased to support the Leader of the Opposition's behaviour—behave on a matter of great sensitivity and interest to the people of Scotland.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Obviously, the people of Scotland will welcome back the Stone of Destiny, which has been a bone of contention for many years. However, I suggest to the Prime Minister that, for every 1,000th person unemployed in Scotland, he gets a bagpiper, and we take that stone and march from one end of the country to the other with at least 200 unemployed bagpipers who have suffered under this Government. Perhaps that will be the stepping stone to a Labour Government and then a Scottish parliament, one which represents and looks after the interests of the people, not a token artefact; real stones for building houses, that is what our people want.

The Prime Minister: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman call the Stone of Destiny a token artefact. That is his view of the Stone of Destiny, and that will be well noted in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman will know that unemployment has been falling consistently in Scotland primarily because of inward investment into Scotland that would not have taken place but for the Government's policies. I suggest that when we have that piper, all the people in Scotland who have new jobs—good jobs, permanent jobs, jobs with a proper career—follow that piper, instead of the people


who were in jobs that were kept there only by Government subsidy, jobs with no future, which was the position before 1979.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents will welcome the return of the stone to Scotland? They will also welcome the commitment that the stone will play a part in future coronation services. My right hon. Friend obviously recognises that it is symbolic of Scotland's part in the Union. Does he agree that there is no chance of him taking steps that will damage the Union, unlike Opposition Members?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend implies, the stone is the property of the Crown and will be returned to the coronation chair to take its place in the ceremony of the crowning of any future sovereign, who would be King of England and, of course, Scotland. To that extent, it symbolises the unity of the United Kingdom, and it is entirely right that the property of Her Majesty the Queen should be placed wherever in Her Majesty's kingdom is deemed most appropriate.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Was this gesture prompted by political motives, or will it be seen in future years as the first in a series of generous gestures to countries in and outwith the multinational state of the United Kingdom? Are we likely to see the return of the Elgin marbles, for example?

The Prime Minister: This gesture was prompted by the 700th anniversary of the stone's removal from Scotland, and I believe it appropriate for it to return to Scotland for those particular reasons. That is not likely to be followed in totally different circumstances by the return of artefacts such as the Elgin marbles. That is not the case.

Mr. Tim Renton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on both the wisdom and the symbolism of what he has announced today. After we have listened to some of the comments of Labour Back Benchers who have ridiculed this step, is it not worth reminding the House that the stone was forcibly removed from the abbey by Scottish nationalists on Christmas morning 1950? Surely that shows the forceful power that is attached to the symbolism of the stone. Its return now should surely be seen as a sign of unity, not one of dissension and ridicule.

The Prime Minister: I believe that that is the case and that that is the way in which this will be viewed by most people, especially those who will have been somewhat shocked by the behaviour of some hon. Members this afternoon.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall now move on.

Points of Order

Mr. George Galloway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of your strictures just yesterday about the use of foul and abusive language in the Chamber, I should like to hear your views on the foul and abusive term used by the Secretary of State for Scotland—the disparaging, racist term of pigmy, which will have caused great offence to many people. Not being tall, dark and handsome himself, one would have thought that he would have taken more care in the use of the word, which was intended and was always used as a disparaging reference to a proud, independent African people who live in southern and central Africa. The use of the term pigmy in that offensive way is racist, and I hope that you will cause the Secretary of State for Scotland to withdraw it.

Madam Speaker: I heard the word used and the context in which it was used. Had I thought it unparliamentary at the time, I would have asked the Member concerned to withdraw it, as I always do. I remind the House that the English language is very rich, and I simply caution all hon. Members—whether they are Front Benchers or Back Benchers—to make full use of the wonderful language that we have been given. I also remind all hon. Members of the very wise words of "Erskine May":
Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.
We should take that to heart.

Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. According to The Herald, the Secretary of State for Scotland has challenged my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to bring his devolution plans before the Scottish Grand Committee. He issued a personal invitation to my right hon. Friend to take the place of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) at this week's Dumfries meeting and face the questions from his own Scottish Members of Parliament. Throwing down the challenge, the Secretary of State said, "Let's hear from the organ grinder, not his monkey."
The Standing Orders relating to the Scottish Grand Committee would not, in fact, allow my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to attend a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee as a member, or to speak at such a meeting. Is it not remarkably arrogant of the Secretary of State to consider the Committee that he touts around Scotland to be his private fiefdom, in which he can invite whomever he likes to come along and speak? Will you make it clear, Madam Speaker, that he has no such power, and also that my right hon. Friend could not have attended?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): rose—

Madam Speaker:: Order. I think that I can deal with this.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has not simply raised a point of order; he has raised a matter of debate, because he has answered the point that he put to me. Standing Order No. 94A lays down that the Scottish Grand Committee shall be made up of
all Members representing Scottish constituencies".


In addition, Ministers of the Crown who are Members of Parliament but not members of the Grand Committee may take part in its deliberations. Consequently, Members of Parliament who, like the Leader of the Opposition, neither represent Scottish constituencies nor are Ministers of the Crown may not on this occasion take their places in the body of the kirk.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) obviously gave you notice of his point of order. If he had raised it with me, I could have told him that what I actually said was that, if the Leader of the Opposition would like to attend the Scottish Grand Committee, I would be quite prepared to present a proposal to amend the Standing Orders in order to make that possible. Those are the words that I used, and my offer remains open. It is significant that no Opposition Members have taken it up.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I will take no more points of order on this matter. I have given a correct ruling, which the House now understands.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it an entirely different point of order?

Mr. Canavan: Yes, Madam Speaker. Do you know whether there is any truth in the report that the Secretary

of State for Scotland has suggested that the Stone of Destiny should be relocated in Stirling castle, in a last desperate effort to find himself a safe seat?

Madam Speaker: We have an important ten-minute Bill with which to deal, and I have a very bad cough. We must move on.

Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I will hear it.

Mr. Field: During Scottish questions, the Secretary of State for Scotland offered to make available files that prove the origin and authenticity of the Stone of Scone. You may have read in yesterday's papers, Madam Speaker, that the Liberal Democrats are calling for the Isle of Wight to be made free of the tax regime and the rule of law applying to this country. There has been an inquiry into the sale of the Isle of Wight to the Crown. Would it be possible for the files to be made available? That would enable us not only to look at the problems of the Isle of Wight, but to welcome the Liberal Democrats' move towards tax cutting and their promise to make the Isle of Wight a tax haven.

Madam Speaker: That is very interesting, but it is also very time-consuming. If the hon. Gentleman needed the answers to his questions, he should have put them to the appropriate Minister. He knows, as I do, that they are not points of order.

Intensive Animal Husbandry (Review)

Mr. Chris Mullin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a body to investigate and report upon intensive animal husbandry and its implications for animal health and welfare, and for human health.
The Bill also wants the body to make recommendations for the establishment of humane and morally defensible systems of animal husbandry.
There is a view that the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis is a terrible but isolated disaster, which can be resolved by the introduction of a few practical measures and the shelling out of a great deal of public money to compensate an industry that has, to a large extent, brought the disaster on itself, after which business can continue as usual. I do not take that view. BSE is nature's revenge on factory farmers. Rather than continuing down the same old road, we should view the BSE scare as an opportunity for everyone concerned—producers and consumers alike—to learn lessons of a more general nature than any that have so far been suggested.
In the past 40 years, the principles of mass production have been introduced into the farmyard. Animals are treated not as sentient beings, capable of feeling pain and emotion, but as agricultural products. The treaty of Rome defines them as such. In the name of the great God efficiency, production systems have been devised that inflict unspeakable suffering on calves, pigs, chickens and turkeys throughout their short and miserable lives.
Pigs are locked in crates, where they can only stand or lie and where they suffer great stress, are bred to unnatural sizes and are forced to produce more than 20 offspring a year—many times their natural output. Broiler chickens, reared for their meat, never see daylight and are crammed together in huge windowless sheds that are littered with excrement, which is never removed in their 42-day lives. They are forced by selective breeding to grow from chicks to adults at twice their normal rate of growth, to the point where they can barely walk.
Hens are reared for their eggs and confined for their entire productive lives in battery cages so tiny that they cannot stretch their wings, let alone walk. Cows are selectively bred to produce much higher milk yields. They are milked to exhaustion, their swollen udders forcing their legs apart; they are often in great pain from mastitis; and they are separated from their calves within a few days of birth. What a terrible fate awaits their calves—or at least it did until the collapse of the beef industry—in the veal crates of France and Holland. The breeding pattern of sheep has been manipulated in response to the demands of supermarkets, so that lambs are produced in winter and not in spring, with the result that hundreds of thousands die of exposure.
How can that be morally justified? It cannot. Agribusiness can get away with it only by hoping that consumers do not find out or that, if we do, we shall avert our eyes. What are we to make of the appalling mutilations visited by factory farmers on their animals? Lambs are castrated either by cutting off their testicles with a knife, or by using a rubber ring to cut off the blood supply so that the testicles drop off. Chickens and turkeys are debeaked with red-hot blades. Piglets have their tails removed with knives or hot irons. Some even have their

teeth clipped. All those mediaeval tortures are allegedly made necessary by the need to stop those unfortunate animals turning on each other in the frustration caused by their close confinement.
Who knows the effect on human health of the diet of antibiotics fed to factory-farmed animals to promote faster growth and to stave off the infections brought about by the awful conditions in which they are reared? The most common types of food poisoning are campylobacter and salmonella. A report published earlier this year by the Advisory Committee on Microbiological Safety concluded that one chicken in three is contaminated with salmonella and that 44 per cent. are contaminated with campylobacter. Who knows what new crises the future holds as long as this madness is allowed to continue?
Gradually, thanks to organisations such as Compassion in World Farming, which I am proud to support and which is the inspiration for the Bill, the consumer is becoming aware of the terrible suffering inflicted in our name. It is for each of us to search his or her conscience and to decide how to respond. For my part, I gave up eating meat some years ago, not because I feared for my health or because I dislike meat, but because I do not wish to be party to the infliction of such barbarity.
I regret that none of the main political parties takes this issue sufficiently seriously. Farm animals' welfare has been scarcely mentioned in any of the many debates and statements in the House arising from the BSE crisis. My party, thanks mainly to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), has some sensible policies, but for some reason we hide our light under a bushel—presumably because farmers have votes and animals do not. That approach is short-sighted.
A growing number of people of all political persuasions—especially the young, who are otherwise disillusioned with politicians—care passionately about the treatment of farm animals. An excellent series of articles on the evils of factory farming appeared in the Daily Mail on 17, 18 and 19 June. It is not every day that I find something to praise in the Daily Mail, but that fine piece of journalism graphically described the effects of unrestrained market forces on the farming industry. A leading article in the Daily Mail on 19 June stated:
We may reckon to have progressed beyond the rustic barbarity of cock fighting and bear baiting. Yet, in all conscience, can anything compare to the systematic cruelty of factory farming?
Even people who are oblivious to the suffering of farm animals are beginning to notice the potential threat to their health and that of their children. My Bill confronts the issues head on. We need a wholly new approach to meat and dairy production. We need to restore morality to meat production. We must wean agribusiness off factory farming and away from the over-use of antibiotics and routine barbarity. We need a system of subsidies that encourages good practice and not merely discourages but penalises bad practice. We should not wait until the message reaches the European Union, although we must do our best to take our EU partners with us. We should act now, in the hope that we can set an example that will be followed by the rest of the world.
My Bill would establish a body that would include veterinarians, doctors, and members appointed after consultation with animal welfare organisations and farming interests. It would have a wider remit than the Farm Animal Welfare Council, whose work I


acknowledge. The new body would be asked to consider the implications of factory farming for not just animals but human health. It would be asked to make specific recommendations on how to bring factory farming of animals to an end. The time has come to return to a morally defensible system of animal husbandry, consistent with life in a civilised country.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Eric Martlew, Sir Andrew Bowden, Mr. Alan Meale, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Bill Etherington, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Bill Olner, Mr. Nigel Jones and Mr. Terry Lewis.

INTENSIVE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY (REVIEW)

Mr. Chris Mullin accordingly presented a Bill to establish a body to investigate and report upon intensive animal husbandry and its implications for animal health and welfare, and for human health: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 167.]

Orders of the Day — Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have to inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short Bill, for the simple reason that its sole purpose is to correct an anomaly in existing legislation, whereby Her Majesty's Stationery Office is permitted to contract out the printing of all legislative and official material, with the single exception of statutory instruments. The Bill amends the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 to bring statute in that area into line with all other classes of material. It also confirms retrospectively the status of existing statutory instruments printed other than by HMSO, but it has no other purpose.
I begin by outlining some of the general considerations that apply to HMSO in its role as printer to the Government. Printing plant of all types is expensive to acquire, maintain and operate, and all printers must be sure of maximum usage of the plant they own. When demand is variable or unpredictable, it is commonplace in the printing industry to own only so much capacity as is likely to be heavily used, and to sub-contract to others at times of peak demand or for jobs in which additional technical expertise is needed.
HMSO is in precisely that position. Its work load depends on the weight of the legislative programme, the parliamentary cycle, new initiatives by Departments and similar factors that—as hon. Members will appreciate—are notoriously difficult to predict.
If HMSO were to acquire sufficient capacity of its own to meet the peaks in demand for its services, there would necessarily be long periods of less than peak demand during which that capacity was under-used or completely idle. No reasonable person could countenance the impact that that would have on costs. For HMSO, such capacity would mean a very substantial increase in the cover prices of its publications, with obvious consequences for the affordability to the general public of official information.
HMSO must therefore sub-contract printing work if it is to operate efficiently and if access to official documents is to be maximised. It has done so for very many years and, in the vast majority of cases, it is perfectly lawful for it to do so. In particular, the Documentary Evidence Act 1882, which is still in force, permits legislation and other legal documents to be printed by third parties under the superintendence and authority of HMSO, as well as directly by it.
The House may be interested to know that that Act—as with many Acts since 1882—was itself printed by the private sector. There is, of course, no reason why private sector printers should not be at least as capable as HMSO


of performing what are, in many cases, technically very simple print jobs. Overall, the results of contracting out have been entirely satisfactory.
HMSO, its customers and the users of its information have therefore benefited for a long time from a regime that allows costs and cover prices to be kept as low as possible.
The sale prices of statutory instruments have not changed for more than three years. There is only a single, anomalous exception to this regime, which relates to the printing of statutory instruments. That is the subject of this Bill.
The Statutory Instruments Act 1946, as it currently stands, imposes directly on HMSO or its ex officio head, the Queen's printer, the duties of printing, issuing and selling statutory instruments. It does not contain the "superintendence and authority" provisions of the 1882 Act. Instead, the 1946 Act followed the pattern of its predecessor, the Rules Publication Act 1893—but those conditions are no longer suitable for modern conditions, even if they were at the time.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the 1946 Act, HMSO has in fact contracted out the printing of statutory instruments for some time. It is hard to determine the exact date on which it began doing so, but records show that the practice dates from at least 1965, and probably earlier.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I have listened to the Minister with mounting interest. First, no one would disagree with his reasonable statements about variations in work loads for printers. However, if the 1946 Act specifically forbade the contracting out of statutory instruments, how did the practice begin? How has the practice developed if it is illegal?
My second point is perhaps of greater interest in the current climate. HMSO has been the subject of many reviews in Government circles in the past five or six years, particularly with the prospect of privatisation. Why has this illegality come to light only now, and not during one of those reviews?

Mr. Freeman: We discovered what has now become the custom and practice—for many years, under Labour and Conservative Governments—of HMSO contracting out a portion of the work of printing statutory instruments because of detailed preparations for privatisation. Privatisation, however, is not contingent on this Bill, as I shall explain in a minute, because we would correct the anomaly. The purpose of the Bill—

Mr. Marshall: rose—

Mr. Freeman: I am still trying to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point, but I shall certainly give way in a moment.
The purpose of the Bill is to correct what is undoubtedly a technical deficiency. I do not have the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, because the practice goes back at least to 1965. My guess is that, because it was lawful to print not only Acts of Parliament but all other public sector documents through

sub-contracting, the management of HMSO assumed, not unreasonably, that they had the legislative authority not only to print SIs themselves but to sub-contract them.

Mr. Marshall: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I realise that it is only a short Bill, and that he wants to make progress. He said that the practice goes back at least to 1965, if I remember his written answer correctly. That date is very convenient for him, because it implicates both our parties. Why are we not dealing with the period from 1946 to 1965? Why stop at 1965? If people had been obeying the law of the land from 1946 to 1965, why did the practice suddenly alter? It is not an anomaly, but an illegality.

Mr. Freeman: The reason for citing 1965 is that 30 years is as far back as HMSO officials could go. My assumption is that, were they able to go back further—looking at the management decisions of HMSO or ministerial decisions in the record of government or in parliamentary answers—they could probably trace the practice back to 1946.
Contracting out may well technically be a breach of the 1946 Act, but HMSO thought that it had good reason for acting in this way. First, it was merely following long-established practice for other official material. Secondly, and more important, demand for SI printing is, if anything, even more volatile than for other documents. Large volumes of important instruments may be required at very short notice. If HMSO had attempted to produce all of them itself to the tight time scales required, its costs, and therefore the cover price of SIs, would have had to increase.
The result of HMSO's actions is, however, that there are in existence very many copies of SIs which have not been produced in strict conformity with the 1946 Act. I must stress that there is no question of the SI itself not being valid, or of past convictions for breaches of an SI being unsound. Secondary legislation becomes law from the moment it is made, or within a short period thereafter, and can be proved if necessary by production to the court of the original signed copy or a certified copy. However, individual printed copies might possibly be contested by those charged under them, and it is possible that courts would be burdened with arguments as to their validity.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall make just two brief points. First, does the Minister accept that it is ironic that the one bit of the system that appears to have been acting illegally, at least in a technical sense, for the past 30 years is the bit that has most to do with examining the small print, or secondary legislation?
Secondly, and more important, this is the second Bill to be introduced this Session because the Government have been doing something that they should not have been doing, and have had to say that the law needs to be amended. The other was the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Act 1996, and, of course, the Minister was at one time a Health Minister.
If the Minister's Department is meant to be co-ordinating Government action, will it undertake, before the end of this Parliament, at least to co-ordinate matters so that we no longer have legislative or procedural practice that appears to be illegal and in need of amendment with no one knowing why things have been proceeding as they have for the past 30 years?

Mr. Freeman: As soon as the Government discovered that there was a problem, and following collective


discussion among Ministers, the decision was made—in my judgment, not only inevitably but correctly—to come straight to the House, report it and present a Bill. The shadow Chancellor, who leads for the Opposition in these matters, and I differ on many things, but one matter on which we agree is the pursuit of good governance. Where there is any hint of a defect in legislation, the Minister in question is obliged to come to the House and correct it. I cannot be held responsible for reviewing the 700 years of legislation passed by Parliament, but I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that, if I am aware of any anomalies arising in any other form of legislation, which have been drawn to my attention and that of the Department, I shall come straight back to the House, or will encourage my colleagues to do so.

Mr. John Garrett: If the defect attaches both to a private contractor and to a public body—HMSO—why is this not a hybrid Bill?

Mr. Freeman: Because the 1946 Act refers specifically to HMSO. The private printer has not contravened the law technically, whereas HMSO has. I am the Minister accountable to Parliament for the acts of HMSO, so the Bill is a public Bill, not a hybrid one.
As things stand, defendants charged with contravening an SI could be acquitted solely on the technical argument that an SI not printed by HMSO had not been properly produced; case law suggests that this is unlikely, but it is not impossible. It is more likely that procedure in the courts might become obstructed, and that individual SIs would need to be specifically proved.
In any event, it is clear that urgent action is needed to confirm the validity and evidential status of existing individual copies of SIs. That would be effected by the passage of the Bill at the earliest opportunity, and that is why the Government seek to complete the remaining stages of the Bill in the House tonight.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister clarify this point? At some stage, he must have known that the practices taking place were illegal. At the moment he learned that, did he stop all illegality? Did he stop the contracts, or did he allow further illegalities to take place?

Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to HMSO, no, I did not, at the time I first become aware of the problem. Yes, I did and have done so—I shall report on this to the House in a moment—once the agreement of my colleagues and Government was obtained. The Bill was then presented.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: So that we have this on the record, did the Minister therefore permit an illegality to persist?

Mr. Freeman: I have to present a Bill to Parliament to clarify and rectify the situation. I will come to the instructions I have given HMSO a little later. I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's question. The moment I became aware personally of the matter, I did not instruct HMSO to cease production. I took further advice, and then discussed the problem with my colleagues. That is a fair and full answer to the hon. Gentleman's perfectly proper question.
It is therefore essential that the Bill confirms the status of existing SIs, allows contracting out to continue in the best interests of all concerned, and closes an outdated loophole. As drafted, it does precisely that. It would allow HMSO to contract with others for the printing and distribution of SIs on exactly the same terms as those currently applying to all other material, including Acts of Parliament.
This is a simple step, and requires only this short Bill. All that is required is to amend the wording of the 1946 Act in each place, so that, instead of specifying that SIs must be printed, issued and sold directly by HMSO, it merely requires that they may be printed, issued and sold by others working under contract to it. That is the substance of the Bill, and forms the first part of clause 1(1).
The second part of that subsection deals only with a related document—the list showing when each statutory instrument was issued. Again, there is no reason why this should be printed and distributed directly by HMSO, and again, HMSO has in the past contracted out this work. This subsection both verifies that practice and provides that it may continue. As a consequence, the statutory instruments issue list would not bear the imprint of the Queen's printer, but would state "printed for HMSO" rather than "printed by HMSO". The House will see that this is a minor point.
Clause 1(2) is slightly more complex. The Bill would amend retrospectively section 3(2) of the 1946 Act. This section states that proceedings for an offence consisting of a contravention of a statutory instrument may be defended on the grounds that the SI concerned had not been issued by HMSO at the time the alleged offence took place.
Subsection (2) prevents the amendment from applying to proceedings that commenced before 21 June. Thus the Bill does not deprive an accused person of any argument that he might have had. In particular, it does not prevent a defendant from calling into question the validity of the statutory instruments issue list, and thus argue that there was no conclusive evidence of the date of issue of a statutory instrument. I am not aware of any proceedings that commenced before 21 June to which a defence under section 3(2) would be relevant.
The Bill makes no other changes to the scope of the defence under section 3(2), or to the rights of defendants. It would simply change the criteria by which a statutory instrument might be deemed to have been properly printed, focused and issued, and the formalities for producing the statutory instrument issue list.
The Bill is not necessary for the privatisation of HMSO. That will proceed to completion irrespective of the Bill's passage. Shortlisted bidders are all aware of the position, and each is proceeding on the basis that statutory instrument printing would be carried out in the public sector. The House should be aware that the total value of sales of statutory instruments represent less than 1 per cent. of HMSO's turnover, so the work is of no more than marginal importance to bidders.
I have also instructed HMSO to cease putting statutory instrument printing out to third parties as soon as practicable. If I might add to my earlier remarks to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), that means as soon as the House rises. It is simply not practicable in the time available for HMSO to


make other arrangements. When the House has risen, the volume of work will reduce substantially, permitting HMSO to print all statutory instruments internally.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for that announcement. He was dealing with technical defences in the courts. Can he tell us—or take advice and let us know later—whether there is a technical defence if a statutory instrument has a starting date when it is deemed to come into effect, but Parliament has not yet debated and approved it? Sadly, that is an increasing practice, which has been the subject of complaint from hon. Members on both sides of the House in recent years.

Mr. Freeman: If the House allows me, and it is appropriate in replying to the debate, I shall seek advice and reply to the hon. Gentleman.
The Bill will allow the residual HMSO which will remain within Government after the sale—with the Queen's printer and an appropriate staff—to contract out the production of statutory instruments. It could do that under contract either with the privatised Stationery Office or with another printer, and in effect would be acting in the same way as HMSO does now.

Mr. Anthony Steen: The Opposition are making a song and dance about the failure to include the contracting out of statutory instruments to private printers. They appear to be suggesting that there a sinister plot or something mischievous is going on. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it has been a practice of Labour and Conservative Administrations, and that there is nothing much in the Bill other than that a mistake has been made and the Government are putting it right. Has he any idea why it was excluded in the first place?

Mr. Freeman: I am not quite sure that I take the drift of my hon. Friend's last comment. I give way to him again.

Mr. Steen: I was wondering why it was excluded from the 1946 Act. Was it just a mistake?

Mr. Freeman: I cannot speak for the 1946 Parliament, but I would venture to suggest that it was not regarded as an important matter. It may not have been discussed in Committee or on Report. No doubt the then Labour Government had more important matters to hand. Perhaps Parliament did not focus on the same degree of detail as it does now.
It is hard, therefore, to see any difference in the service that would be provided. The Bill merely puts its legitimacy beyond doubt.
The Bill is not required for the sale of HMSO. If it is not enacted before the sale, the residual HMSO would arrange to print all statutory instruments directly itself. Detailed arrangements for how that would be done are being drawn up. The residual HMSO would employ its own printers and rent the night-time use of equipment at HMSO's Sovereign press at Elephant and Castle.
That would, though, be a most unattractive option. It would require Government to maintain a capacity that was rarely fully used, and which would therefore involve needless extra costs. Without a subsidy from the taxpayer,

those extra costs would need to be passed on in the form of higher cover prices for statutory instruments. Estimates suggest that, if that course were to be followed—the Government are perfectly prepared to follow it—the average cover price of statutory instruments would rise by about one third. Failure to pass the Bill would mean that privatisation would certainly not be obstructed, but the cost of statutory instruments to the public would rise, to the detriment of wider public access.
The Bill's brevity belies its importance and urgency. Its passage is necessary, first, to confirm the status of existing statutory instruments to prevent the courts from being obstructed by specious debate as to the validity of statutory instruments and remove any chance of defendants in criminal cases being acquitted solely on the technical grounds that a statutory instrument had not been properly produced.
Secondly, the Bill will allow HMSO to continue to secure best value for money in the production of statutory instruments, and to keep cover prices as low as possible. Failure to pass the Bill would risk burdening the courts and necessitate rises in the cover price of statutory instruments. I trust that hon. Members will realise that the measure is non-contentious and urgent, and it is in those terms that I commend it to the House.

Mr. Derek Foster: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill which, while purporting to remedy a long-standing uncertainty, has been principally prompted by the Government's decision to privatise HMSO.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I really ought to stop meeting like this. We keep having debates on the civil service and Her Majesty's Stationery Office. They may not have the Lobby correspondents gripping their seats, but they certainly keep me off the streets. There is no telling what mischief a former Chief Whip turned bovver boy can get up to.
On 18 December 1995, the Chancellor said:
I confirm that my advice is that no primary or secondary legislation is needed".—[Official Report, 18 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1285.]
Yet now, towards the recess, obviously to invite the House to act hurriedly, the Chancellor is introducing primary legislation.
The Chancellor of the Duchy will argue, and indeed has argued, that the Bill has nothing to do with the privatisation of HMSO. Indeed, the House will have scrutinised his parliamentary answer on 19 June 1996, in which he said:
Some of the printing of statutory instruments has been contracted out by HMSO for over 30 years as the most cost-effective way of producing them.
He admitted:
A careful examination has recently been made of the legislation which refers to HMSO and the Queen's Printer. This has revealed that while the Queen's Printer can contract out the printing of statutes, this may not be the case for statutory instruments."—[Official Report, 19 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 471.]
So it appears that HMSO has been acting outside the law for more than 30 years in contracting out the printing of statutory instruments. The annual cost of such work is about £200,000, while HMSO's turnover is about £375 million.
The embarrassment for the Government is that the legal force of all statutory instruments so printed by contracting out might be subject to legal challenge on the basis that the statutory instrument was illegally printed. The Government are obviously very concerned that, once that is known, a whole range of organisations could engage in litigation against them, so the Chancellor introduced a Bill on 20 June to put right that defect. The legislation is retrospective, in order to validate those statutory instruments printed by contracting out over the previous 30-odd years.
The written answer mentions 1965 as the date of the earliest reference in the records to the fact that HMSO was sub-contracting the printing of statutory instruments. Clearly the implication is that that happened under Labour Governments—indeed, that it may have begun under a Labour Government. The House will no doubt therefore expect the full co-operation of the official Opposition in rectifying that unfortunate anomaly, which apparently puts in question the validity of thousands of statutory instruments.
What could be more reasonable than for the Chancellor of the Duchy to bring before the House a problem and its remedy at the earliest opportunity? At the same time, he invites the House to enable the Queen's printer, the residual HMSO, to contract out the printing of statutory instruments after privatisation. After all, we are told that that is the most cost-effective method of printing them, as HMSO discovered in 1965 or earlier. So the Minister for open government is behaving openly with the House. He is behaving most scrupulously, properly and courteously, as we have come to expect.
Let us now return to 18 December 1995, and the right hon. Gentleman's statement that no primary or secondary legislation would be required for the privatisation of HMSO. I recall being surprised by that response, because I had asked the Library to check whether primary or secondary legislation would be required. I have here a letter from the Library—surprisingly, it is dated the very same day, 18 December 1995—and I shall make it available to the House. It says:
An order will be made under part I of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which will deal with the ability of HMSO to fulfil its function as Queen's Printer under the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, and will make clear that, as long as the duty to procure and print is done under HMSO's superintendence and authority, the statutory requirement will be met … HMSO will have no in-house printing capability.
How can the Chancellor of the Duchy explain that, on the same day that he told the House that no legislation would be required, it was admitted within his Department that secondary legislation would be necessary? Where else can the Library's information have come from?
I now return to the right hon. Gentleman's written answer of 19 June, and his statement:
A careful examination has recently been made of the legislation which refers to HMSO and the Queen's Printer."—[Official Report, 19 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 471.]
The Office of Public Service's background briefing to the Bill, issued after 19 June, says:
The potential problem was first discovered as part of research into HMSO's statutory functions while options for its future were being evaluated before last year's announcement that it was to be privatised.
When was that announcement made? The right hon. Gentleman made his initial announcement on 27 September 1995, and published a written answer on

17 October. So—here I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—the problem was known about as early as late September 1995, and certainly by 17 October.
Indeed, rumours are circulating that the need for retrospection has been known in Whitehall for about two years. If that is true, it casts serious doubt on the veracity of the right hon. Gentleman's statements, and especially on the argument that the need to validate statutory instruments printed under contract is the major purpose of the Bill before us.
Another question arises. If the right hon. Gentleman knew in September 1995 that there was a problem, why did it take him until 19 June 1996 to tell the House? He is the Minister responsible for open government. Was he not failing in his duty to the House, especially when he was pressed on whether primary or secondary legislation would be needed?
The Chancellor of the Duchy will reply that it would have been incompetent and irresponsible to tell the House and the country that there was a problem until he could announce the solution. Such an action would have been tantamount to an invitation to a range of organisations legally to challenge the force of individual statutory instruments on the grounds that they had been printed illegally.
The Department had been advised that it would be inappropriate to deal with the problem by means of a deregulation order, but the House deserves a fuller explanation of this inappropriateness. Was it inappropriate as a vehicle for contracting out the future printing of statutory instruments, or would a deregulation order be an inappropriate vehicle for retrospective action? If it was the latter, I think that the House would agree.
I have done some research on this matter, and I am advised by the Clerk of the appropriate Committee that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 has not been used retrospectively hitherto, although it is not impossible that it may be so used at some time in the future. My advice is that it is more likely to have been thought inappropriate because an order under the 1994 Act must remove a burden from business.

Mr. Steen: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that orders might fall within the issue of printing, and that orders under the contracting-out legislation should be printed in-house and included as statutory instruments?

Mr. Foster: No, I was making the more simple point that the Government knew before December 1995 that there was a problem. Originally, they considered that the solution might be to bring in orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. I was wondering aloud why it was thought inappropriate to deal with the problem in that way.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am following the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, and I understand it. But the main question remains to be asked and answered—either something needs regulation that allows it to be contracted out or it does not. Yes, people giving advice can change their minds, but the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to hear from the Government—and we are entitled to have it on the record—whether the contracting-out legislation


will apply to this measure. I encourage him to pursue that argument, as a lot of people outside are waiting for a clear answer.

Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The question that I was entertaining was whether the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 was about to be used to deal with the problem of contracting out printing, or as a means of retrospectively validating those statutory instruments that have been illegally printed for the past 30 years or so. It struck me that the legislation was probably designed to deal with the former problem.
If the Government were focusing in December 1995 on the former problem and how it was to be dealt with in the future—and if the 1994 Act was the legislative vehicle for dealing with it—retrospection was not part of the solution they were seeking. That is my argument. Was it inappropriate or inconvenient to the Chancellor? That would clearly contradict his statement on 18 December 1995, as it would have been far more difficult to mask the deregulation orders linked with the privatisation of HMSO.
In that event, the Minister with responsibility for open government might even be required to return to the House to admit having misled it on 18 December. Moreover, as he had made his statement on 18 December, when, as I have already demonstrated, the need for legislation was already known within his Department, he might even have had to admit knowingly misleading the House. Of course, he might be able to plead, "No one told me," or, "I was not shown the papers," according to the distinguished precedent of the Prime Minister in front of the Scott inquiry.
To return to his written answer of 19 June, the Chancellor of the Duchy also said:
Meanwhile, HMSO will enter into no more external printing contracts for statutory instruments."—[Official Report, 19 June 1996: Vol. 279, c. 471.]
Yet I understand that the present contracts continue until 1998. Again, that touches on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington—why the Chancellor did not take action to deal with the illegality as soon as it was known, perhaps as early as the end of September 1995.
Although the present contract continues until 1998, my legal advice is that existing contracts for printing statutory instruments cannot exist in law, because they have been entered into ultra vires. So legitimate questions arise: will HMSO continue with the present contractual arrangements, even though the contracts have no legal force; or, if the contracts continue, will they transfer to the residual HMSO or be expected to transfer to the privatised HMSO?
If the contracts are to be discontinued, how will the printing of statutory instruments be arranged? Until the Bill becomes law, HMSO cannot enter into new contracts to have them printed, because the Chancellor has instructed it not to do so. HMSO will be obliged, therefore, to undertake the printing of statutory instruments in-house.
I understand that the Parliamentary Press will be unable to cope with the extra work until the recess, so until then who can legally print statutory instruments? Perhaps the

Chancellor will deal with that when he replies. Moreover, I understand that the work force at the Parliamentary Press are on contracts that require them to close down during the recess, so it will be unable to take on the printing of statutory instruments then.
Surely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington said, the Government were obliged to stop HMSO contravening the law as soon as the illegality was known—as early as September 1995—but certainly as soon as it was publicly admitted. The Government and Parliament cannot condone the continuation of illegality on the basis that it is soon to be rectified. That presumes that the Bill will receive Royal Assent, which is highly likely but not certain.
It is also not certain when it will receive Royal Assent, as it has yet to go to another place. If the Bill did not receive it until after HMSO was privatised, there would certainly be complications, for the privatised Stationery Office could not legally print statutory instruments, and the Queen's printer or the residual HMSO would have no in-house printing facility.
An extract from the edited information memorandum dated 3 April 1996 reads:
bids should be based on the assumption that the work currently done in house would be assigned to the stationery office"—
that is, the privatised HMSO. However, in his letter to the Financial Times dated 21 June 1996, which has already been referred to, the Chancellor of the Duchy said:
bidders are proceeding on the basis that the printing of all statutory instruments would be carried out by the public sector.
Which is it?

Mr. Freeman: With the permission of the Chair, I will answer all the other points later, but, for the sake of clarity, it may help the debate if I answer this specific point now.
We have made arrangements for the shortlist of bidders to proceed on the basis that residual HMSO hires, in its own name, up to 16 staff, working for residual HMSO on plant at the Sovereign Press at Elephant and Castle, not the Parliamentary Press, to print statutory instruments in full accordance with the 1946 law. As I have told the House, that would increase the cost to the public sector, but it is a procedure that I have set in hand in order to ensure that the privatisation of HMSO is separated from the merits of the Bill.

Mr. Foster: I understand that fully. I understand that the Chancellor is making contingency arrangements against the non-passage of the Bill. I was trying to seek clarification. The background information document produced by the Office of Public Service gives the impression that bidders should proceed on the basis that the work would be done in the privatised HMSO. Yet, in his letter to the Financial Times of 21 June, he said that it will be dealt with in the public sector.

Mr. Freeman: I am sorry that I did not answer that point. The information document was issued before the statement to the House. The action I have taken, which is the most up-to-date position, is subsequent to the issue of the information document. We have not placed an amended version in the Library, because I have reported directly to the House. I have reported the most up-to-date position, which reverses that in the information document.

Mr. Foster: That raises the question when the Chancellor changed the information available to the


House. I do not remember it being made available in the written answer of 19 June. Yet he wrote to the Financial Times on 21 June, giving the world what I consider to be new information that has not been given to the House and which contradicts information previously given to the House. That requires some explanation. I do not want to labour this, but there is a point that should be dealt with.
The Chancellor said that bidders should proceed on the basis that the work would be done in the public sector. When were the bidders told that, and in what form were they told? Can Parliament be shown the form in which the information was revealed? Why was Parliament not informed that the printing of all statutory instruments would be carried out by the public sector? What does the Chancellor mean when he says that the printing of statutory instruments will be carried out by the public sector? In fact, he just described in his intervention what he means by that. Presumably it will be carried out under the new arrangements at the Sovereign Press.
An even more fundamental problem arises from scrutiny of the extract from the edited information memorandum of 3 April 1996. The House deserves to know that the information memorandum was forwarded to all prospective private sector bidders. It says that the residual body will also discharge the functions of the Queen's printer in relation to the production and issue of statutory instruments. When was that important information given to the House?
It does not strike me as satisfactory that the document was placed in the Library, when it was being circulated to private sector bidders, especially as legislation on this matter was already under active consideration. It seems strange that the Government are prepared to reveal to private sector bidders for HMSO what is not drawn to the attention of the House.
I want now to demonstrate the inextricable linkage of the Bill to HMSO's privatisation. We all agree that the law as it now stands requires the printing of statutory instruments by the Queen's printer—HMSO. But after privatisation, the Queen's printer, or the residual HMSO, will have no in-house printing facility. Therefore, after privatisation, the Queen's printer will be unable to fulfil the requirements of the law as it now stands.
Therefore, is not the major purpose of the legislation to allow the Queen's printer to sub-contract the printing of statutory instruments after HMSO's privatisation, not the retrospection, as is being pretended? If HMSO was not privatised, HMSO, remaining in the public sector, could fulfil the requirements of the law as it now stands.
The Chancellor will argue that HMSO, remaining in the public sector, could not have fulfilled the requirements of the law as it now stands, because, at the moment, £200,000 worth of work is done in the private sector under contract. That is not a huge amount compared with HMSO's total turnover of £375 million. Surely the flexibility could have been achieved to bring an additional £200,000-worth of work back into the public sector, thus allowing HMSO to fulfil the requirements of the law as it now stands.
Of course, the retrospection would still have to be dealt with, and no one is arguing to the contrary, but the claim in the House of Commons on 18 December that the privatisation of HMSO did not require any primary or secondary legislation would have been seen to have been false.
It might have been desirable to change the law to allow HMSO in the public sector to sub-contract the printing of statutory instruments, but it would not have been necessary. The Bill, or some other primary or secondary legislative vehicle, would have been necessary to permit a residual HMSO after privatisation to continue printing statutory instruments.
Had the Chancellor introduced a simple Bill to allow the sub-contracting of the printing of statutory instruments by the residual HMSO, it would have been clearly seen as a measure required by HMSO's privatisation. But he has conceived the ingenious device of including retrospective validation of statutory instruments printed during the past 30 years. Is it not remarkable that, although the legal force of statutory instruments has been challenged a number of times in 30 years, no one has so far sought to challenge them on the basis that they have been illegally printed?
Is it not the truth that that has been known about for some time in Government, but it was not thought serious enough to be dealt with except when a convenient legislative vehicle cropped up? Suddenly, when some legislation was required because of HMSO's privatisation, an opportunity to deal with that anomaly has arisen.
If the Chancellor had legislated separately, I am sure that the House, and perhaps even the other place, would have dealt with the retrospective element without fuss. The other element, required only because of HMSO's privatisation, could have been dealt with on its merits.
I have dealt with the matter at some length, because the burden of proof is on the Opposition to demonstrate that the legislation was prompted by the privatisation of HMSO. I hope that I have demonstrated that the link is far stronger than that of being "prompted by"—rather, that there is an inextricable link between the Bill and the privatisation of HMSO.
The Bill will have retrospective effect to validate all the statutory instruments hitherto printed by contractors. The House is always reluctant to pass legislation which has retrospective effect, and rightly so. Generally speaking, retrospective legislation is said to be undesirable as repugnant to the rule of law, but there are degrees of retrospectivity.
Legislation that makes legal past actions, decisions or circumstances, especially by public officials or bodies that were thought to be legal by all concerned but which have turned out to be been unlawful, or probably so, may not be regarded as particularly undesirable per se. I have no hesitation in endorsing the Government's perfectly understandable wish to remove all uncertainty by retrospectively validating all statutory instruments printed by contract over the past 30 years. It would be churlish of a Government-in-waiting to withhold their approval for that part of the Bill.
I turn briefly to the progress of privatisation, having established the link, because the House may not have another opportunity to debate the issue. The main thrust of the Chancellor's argument for privatisation was that, to safeguard jobs and expand job opportunities, HMSO should be allowed to operate in both the public and private sectors. For example, he said:
it is important that HMSO—the Stationery Office, as it will become in the private sector—has the ability to compete in the private sector for private sector work.


The Chancellor also said:
HMSO needs the freedom of the private sector to compete on equal terms for public and private sector work. Such trading opportunities will mitigate those job pressures, and, if a privatised Stationery Office is successful in marketing, will mean that more jobs will be available than would otherwise exist."—[Official Report, 18 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 84–86.]
If hon. Members would care to re-examine the written memorandum made by the Chancellor to the Finance and Services Committee, they will see that it
proposed the sale by the summer of 1996 noting that HMSO was constrained by its status from competing for business outside the public sector at a time when its central Government market was shrinking. In these circumstances there is a real risk that the business will decline unless HMSO can widen the markets. Privatisation will therefore offer the best chance of a healthy and dynamic future for HMSO and its staff".
The Chancellor argued that HMSO's public sector market was declining, yet the advice that I have received makes it clear that none of the private sector bidders has serious plans to enter the private sector in the short or the medium term. Indeed, each bidder has identified that the key to HMSO's continued success is to ensure that it progressively takes a larger share of the public sector market. They argue that that is the sector where HMSO is best known and has the greatest expertise.
That is hardly surprising, because, if hon. Members would care to examine the extract from the edited information memorandum of 3 April 1996, which appears on page 25 of the excellent research document produced by the House of Commons Library on 28 June, they will see that HMSO's share of £271 million of the total United Kingdom public sector market of £3,155 million is only 8 per cent. The memorandum goes on to admit:
HMSO's market share still leaves a significant opportunity for a potential purchaser to capitalise on HMSO's existing capabilities and target the markets available even within the public sector.
That is from the Minister's official document, published by the Office of Public Service. Why did the Chancellor not admit that when he was pressed in the debates of 18 December and 18 March? When his own document admits that there is considerable scope for increasing market share within the public sector, and when his private sector bidders admit that they see the continued success of HMSO in taking an increasing share of the public sector market, why could the Chancellor not see that?
Why was the Chancellor not given that advice by his extensive consultants—or was he given it, and did he choose to ignore it? If the private sector bidders have reached this conclusion in the short time available to them, does that not remove the Chancellor's strongest argument for the privatisation of HMSO, and is it not clear that his madcap scheme to privatise it has been an expensive waste of time, damaging to HMSO but devastating to many staff who now find themselves redundant, while those who remain in their jobs face further swingeing job cuts?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman continues, let me say that, although I know that he has established a link between the Bill and the general privatisation issue to his own satisfaction, it is a very thin, weak link. It would be better if he related his remarks more closely to the Bill.

Mr. Foster: Far be it from me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to argue with your statement that it is a rather

weak link, but I thought that I had established a stronger link than appears on the Order Paper, and I should have thought that the link on the Order Paper would allow me to make a few remarks about the privatisation of HMSO. But of course I accept your ruling.

Mr. Garrett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does your ruling mean that—notwithstanding the amendment's reference to Second Reading of the Bill resulting from the privatisation of HMSO—we must assume that no reference can be made to the current state of the privatisation and its impact on my constituents?

Madam Deputy Speaker: There must be a link with the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman looks closely at the amendment, he will find that it is cautiously worded. That, I think, reflects the understanding that, although passing reference can be made to the privatisation, it cannot become the main topic of the debate.

Mr. Foster: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I will end my remarks in the next few minutes, but I do not think that I should do so without reminding the House that, according to his original announcement, the Chancellor's initial intention was to deal with uncertainty—uncertainty that was caused by the Government in the first place.
The Chancellor's preferred bidders are now making it clear that the period of uncertainty that has been so damaging to HMSO, and especially to its staff, has been completely unnecessary. HMSO had had great scope to expand its business while remaining in the public sector, but under privatisation the uncertainty, far from being dealt with, will continue. Each bidder makes it clear that further job losses will ensue after privatisation, and there is a growing belief that the work force will decline from its present 2,500 to about 1,500. Consideration is already being given to the closure of plants around the country.
The Chancellor will remember that, on 18 December 1995, when he was arguing that legislation was not required, he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) an assurance about HMSO units in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. He said:
I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the future of those units, and any others, will be made clear before any contract is negotiated and signed."—[Official Report, 18 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1281.]
How does that square with the trade union side's evidence that, following discussion with the bidders, some bidders are more interested in the capital value of such sites than in running HMSO? When will the Chancellor make clear the future of the units mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow? His deadline for completion of the sale of HMSO is fast approaching.
What possible excuse can the Chancellor now have for persisting with the privatisation of HMSO? The bidders have no plans for it to sell in wider markets, and no plans to raise capital in the private sector. The proposal has already caused huge uncertainty for HMSO and its staff over the past two years; the staff has been continually downsized, at great public expense; some £26 million has been spent on redundancies over the past 18 months, and further sums are still to be spent. The staff do not want the privatisation, and HMSO's customers certainly do not want it. There are still reservations in parts of the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. In his enthusiasm, the right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten my


strictures. He must relate his remarks more closely to the Bill, and not deal with the general issue of privatisation, which is separate from the Bill.

Mr. Foster: I thought when you were addressing my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), Madam Deputy Speaker, that I had brought in a reference to the Chancellor's earlier statement about there being no need for legislation. Having dealt with that extensively, I thought that that brought me back within order—but I have reached the final paragraph of my speech.
As I have said, I am certain that HMSO's customers do not want the privatisation, and there are still several reservations in both the House of Commons and another place. What possible excuse can the Chancellor have, except stubbornness and dogma? I plead with him, even at this late stage, to halt the proposals, and have done with his madcap scheme.

Mr. Anthony Steen: It is very rewarding to be in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you remind hon. Members other than me that they should not depart from the limited subject of the Bill—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember that I do not exclude him.

Mr. Steen: That is why I prefaced my remarks in such a way, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be pleased to know that, as a result of your strictures, my speech has been cut dramatically.
I want to make a limited comment on both the Bill and the statutory instruments. We should welcome the Bill. When the Government find something that is not right and bring it to the House to try to put it right, we should support the Government and the Minister. I shall certainly do that this afternoon. An error was made, but it was not made by the present Government: successive Governments made an error in not spotting the problem. It was discovered only as a result of some digging in the archives. We should congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on giving us such a clear explanation of his actions.
As I said in my interventions, the suggestion that something is buried in the closet, that there is some secret or that the Opposition have been given an excuse to raise any number of hares is not what this modest measure is about, but it does raise one or two issues. First, statutory instruments have clearly become a fashionable device. In 1946 there were not many of them, but in the last two years 8,097 new statutory instruments have emerged. Only 30 have been repealed, however. Whereas in 1946, or 1964, the printers were not greatly occupied with statutory instruments, in the past few years they have printed an awful lot of them. In the absence of this helpful measure, they would all have to be printed in the House, which would in fact be impossible. This simple Bill is merely intended to correct an anomaly.
We spent 16 hours and 11 minutes on the Floor of the House, and 92 hours and 56 minutes in Standing Committee, debating the Bill that became the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which was mentioned a number of times by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). I am not saying that,

as a result of the Act, the Government have not pursued deregulation. They set up a Deregulation Select Committee as the flagship of the whole policy, but, regrettably, only 30 deregulation orders have resulted in the 51 hours it has sat. Such orders are not statutory instruments, but is an amendment needed to the Bill to allow the deregulation orders to be lawful? Otherwise, deregulating gaming machines, greyhound racing, parking equipment and the long-pull order may be ultra vires.
There may be a nexus between statutory instruments and deregulation orders, even though they appear to be separate. It would help to know whether the 30 deregulation orders that have come out of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act should be added to the 8,097 statutory instruments, or whether nothing further is needed to make those 30 orders lawful. It would be appalling if, in 50 years' time, we found that the Deregulation Select Committee were passing orders and having them printed in a way that we could put right today, so could my right hon. Friend the Chancellor deal with that point in his winding-up speech?
The Bill has given us an opportunity to raise such points and the problem of the statutory instrument, which is becoming more and more a way of life in the House, creating more and more rules and regulations. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has come to correct an anomaly, but the statutory instrument has become a modus vivendi. To pass statutory instruments has become a culture. I should be upstairs considering one now. Like human lemmings, we just rush on. As you often say, Madam Deputy Speaker, "We must move on," but no one dares ask why. There is a danger that we will pass more and more statutory instruments and find a new device for getting them printed in new and more exciting places, without tackling the issue.
Because of the constraints to which you referred, Madam Deputy Speaker, however, it would be inappropriate to talk about the problems of statutory instruments, the fact that they are secondary legislation and the enormous number that are going through the House. The issue involves simply correcting an anomaly. We should not make another mistake with the orders coming out of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I should make it clear at the outset that I am a member of the parliamentary group of the Graphical, Paper and Media Union, that I was formally sponsored by it, but that I now receive no sponsorship personally. Union members who work in Her Majesty's Stationery Office will be as disappointed as me at your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you made it clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) that you were not prepared to permit a much wider debate on the issue surrounding the privatisation of HMSO.
My view remains that we still need a further opportunity to discuss the privatisation and, if you are not going to permit it on this occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that the Government, through the occupant of the Chair, will arrange a further debate. Clearly, problems surround the privatisation. Fears remain. All HMSO employees have the right to have those fears voiced in the House of Commons and to receive some response from the Government.
I repeat the point that I made to the Chancellor in an intervention. I am still astounded that this illegality could have persisted for 30 years without anyone having spotted it. The Chancellor referred specifically to the 1946 legislation. It is clear from that legislation that the printing of statutory instruments by private contractors is not permitted.
It may not have come to light for 30 years, but could the Chancellor give us a little more detail on how—not when—it came to light in the context of the discussions on privatisation? He was specific on the dates, but when I asked him my question, he did not pay specific attention to the point, so I would like to know the mechanics of how the error came to light. I am not accusing the Chancellor of behaving dishonourably. I just want a clear and specific answer, if there is one.
In view of your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, I must tread carefully, but I can remain in order for a couple of minutes without your having to draw attention to my lack of order. I refer to two comments by the Chancellor. He said that the Bill would have no effect on the date of the HMSO sale to the private sector. If it is not going to delay the date, will he please give us the specific date the transfer is likely to take place? We were told that the sale might be in June or July. We now hear rumours that it could take place as late as September or October, so will the Chancellor clearly say when it is likely to take place?
The Chancellor said that the printing of statutory instruments was marginal to HMSO's business. I heard the figures that he quoted, but clearly it would have some impact on HMSO jobs, although the effect would be marginal. In that context, the right hon. Gentleman said that the point of the Government's policy was to safeguard jobs—a point to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland referred before he was ruled out of order. The Chancellor said that the point of substance was
to safeguard jobs and expand job opportunities. HMSO should be allowed to operate in both public and private sector markets."— [Official Report, 13 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 999–1000.]
That is the Government's basic position. They believe that the privatisation of HMSO will safeguard jobs and provide greater opportunity. Does the Chancellor believe that any of the four present bidders will be able to fulfil the Government's aspirations?
To repeat the point that I made earlier, I am extremely disappointed that we have not been able to have a wider debate on the privatisation of HMSO. I just hope that there will be a further opportunity before the privatisation becomes a fait accompli.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise to the House for the fact that I am dealing with this issue, rather than my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Were he not at home for family reasons, he would be here in his capacity both as the person shadowing the Department from which the Bill comes and as the person who, coincidentally, replies on behalf of the House of Commons Commission on these matters, which involve the view of the House and of Madam Speaker, on behalf of the House.
The Bill reminds me of a late and much lamented constituent of mine, Paul Eddington, who provided great amusement and happiness in his representation in "Yes Minister" of discussions behind closed doors, and sometimes not, between the Prime Minister and members of his Cabinet. That portrayal was in theory simulated, but many of us thought that it was not far from the truth. The Bill is real "Yes Minister" legislation. I am prepared to accept the Duchy's explanation that the measure arose from the discovery that the body responsible for producing parliamentary papers has been acting illegally for 30 years—an extraordinary conclusion.
The other person who would have made a meal of this debate, if he had been on form and taken an interest, was the late and also much lamented Ian Gow, the previous but one Member of Parliament for Eastbourne. He would have enjoyed commenting on the measure, because it may be a mouse of a Bill but it raises an important constitutional principle.
Clause 1(1) states:
The Statutory Instruments Act 1946 shall have effect and be taken always to have had effect".
This is a rewrite history Bill. Whatever actually happened, if the Bill becomes law, we will have decided that it did not happen that way. How often since the present Administration came to power in 1979 have they introduced a measure to legislate retrospectively? I can think only of the War Crimes Bill of 1991. We should not take that step lightly, no matter how serious or insignificant the legislation—and such a course should put us on our guard.
The Chancellor did not tell the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) how the people responsible for producing parliamentary papers acted illegally for 30 years. Surely somebody had written down that certain work had to be produced in-house, whereas other work could be contracted. The Bill is about the fact that, for 30 years, HMSO contracted out statutory instrument printing when it was not allowed to do so. What explanation has the Chancellor been given? It is hardly accurate to say that the circumstances have been lost in the mist of time, in the sense that the restriction was not breached from the beginning. I have not heard the Chancellor argue that the printing of statutory instruments was contracted out from 1946 to 1965—he said that it suddenly happened.
I accept that it may have been cheaper to contract out that work, and may continue to be. However, it would be even more bizarre to revert to the legal position for the time during which the Bill passes through both Houses, then change to the new legal position that was the legal position all the time. I do not imagine that Mr. and Mrs. and Miss Public go to an HMSO sales office principally to buy statutory instruments. Nevertheless, there is a market for those documents among libraries and local government offices and, as secondary legislation, they are an important part of the constitution.
As the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said, there are numerous statutory instruments. One such measure will come before the House later—the Landfill Tax (Qualifying Material) Order 1996, SI 1528. There are many such measures, and they are important.
I have a direct interest and an indirect interest to declare. The Parliamentary Press is located in Mandela way in Southwark, in my constituency. I was present at


the opening of that press, which serves both Houses, together with former Speaker Weatherill. Bills, Acts, Lords Minutes of Proceedings, Order Papers, Vote bundles, the debates in both Houses, the proceedings of Select Committees and Standing Committees, statutory instruments, the London Gazette and associated parliamentary papers
for the wheels of parliamentary democracy to turn
are produced day and night. I am informed that those publications amount to 250,000 pages a year.
I pay tribute to the work done at the Parliamentary Press, including by some of my constituents, and to its professionalism. I share the view expressed my by hon. Friends in previous debates on HMSO—I shall not rehearse those points, for reasons that you have made clear, Madam Deputy Speaker—for we have never been persuaded not to continue the existing arrangements, by which the work is done well. It is a highly efficient and competent operation, and every employee who has contacted me wants the press to remain as it is and under its present management, not sold off.
I have an interest also in the Sovereign Press at the Elephant and Castle, which is also in Southwark, but SE17 as opposed to SE 1. That is the small bit of Southwark that the boundary commission designated to be absorbed by my constituency in the next general election, which the House has approved. I hope also to represent that part of Southwark, the electors willing, in the next Parliament. I am grateful for the work that both presses have done, in-house or otherwise, on statutory instruments in the past.
When I intervened on the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), I queried why a deregulation order was needed last December but not now. If there is now no need for such an order, why not? Who decided that, and when? Although I have not made an analytical survey, one matter that excites the House is that it is regularly asked to approve statutory instruments when their date of implementation has passed. My understanding is that, because of the pressure of business, hon. Members are bounced-a measure can be put into effect without being debated. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected. Otherwise, it seems that we are perpetually debating retrospectively, which is extremely bad law making.
Although I am a lawyer, I never wanted to be a parliamentary draftsman. However, I do not understand why parliamentary draftsmen proceed in the way that they do. Why have a separate Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Act 1996 rather than amend the 1946 legislation and have a measure entitled the Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Act 1996? As someone who once practised in the courts, I know that the bane of lawyers, let alone of lay people, is to track back linked pieces of legislation. Hon. Members have a duty not only to speak in plain English but to legislate in a simple and linked manner.
The Bill is only a small amendment to a more substantial Act, and it does not add to that Act at all. The notes on clauses say that the Bill is to amend sections 2(1), 3(1), 3(2), 4(2) and 8(1)(c) of the 1946 Act. For heaven's sake, why do we not call it the Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill, so that everyone knows the score?
This is a mouse of a Bill. I accept the Chancellor's arguments that, having discovered the illegality, we should correct it. I only wish that the Government

corrected their other illegalities when courts in this country or in Europe rule that they are acting illegally, and that they did not seek retrospectively to change the law to pretend that what was illegal is now legal. Generally, it is bad law to act retrospectively—but it is a very odd state of affairs when the people charged with producing the law were, for 30 years, behaving illegally.
If that type of situation has not already been scripted by the successors of the late Paul Eddington, it would make a valid script for a future episode. I am sure that the Chancellor could get a walk-on part if, as I hope, he and his colleagues are by then in opposition. They may need walk-on parts to supplement their salary, however much we increase it next week.
5.31 pm

Mr. Freeman: With permission, I should like to deal briefly with some of the points raised in this brief debate.
The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) raised points of substance. First, he correctly referred to my remarks of 18 December 1995, when I informed the House that, on the advice that I had, no legislation was needed—primary or secondary—to effect the privatisation of HMSO.
On 18 March, I informed the House that I had to qualify that statement. For the convenience of the House, I shall remind the right hon. Gentleman of what I said in that Supply day debate. I mentioned the need, in order to wind up the trading fund, to introduce an
order under section 6 of the Government Trading Act 1990 simultaneously with the sale."—[Official Report, 18 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 89.]
No other legislation, primary or secondary, is needed to effect the privatisation of HMSO, because, as I have said, the Bill has nothing to do with the privatisation of HMSO. The privatisation of HMSO can proceed regardless of whether the Bill is passed. The Bill's purpose is to achieve the wider objectives of good government and to ensure the avoidance of any doubt in the minds of those who might seek to challenge the validity of statutory instruments.
Secondly, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland asked whether the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and an order under that Act were ever relevant, and whether they could be relevant. That is news to me. The 1994 Act—despite whatever any research papers may have said—could not have been used to deal with the situation because it could not contain retrospective powers. Of course, well-intentioned comment on the situation, was and still is in perfectly good order, but at no stage was it the Government's intention to proceed, for the reasons that I have given.
Thirdly, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland asked why there was a delay. He has extensive knowledge of government, and he aspires to an even greater experience of government. He knows very well that in these circumstances I could not come to the House with a problem without a solution. If I came to the House with a problem and said that I would go away and think about a solution, he would wisely, sensibly and quite correctly criticise me. I have long since realised that the identification of a problem is an easier stage than identifying the correct solution.
Fourthly, the right hon. Member referred to the disparity between what was said in the information document, which was issued at a much earlier stage—in April—and what was said in the House. I do not have the information memorandum in front of me, but I recall—if I am wrong, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman—that it referred in very general terms to the fact that arrangements for the production and issue of statutory instruments were under review and that arrangements might change. That was true at the time.
We informed the bidders of that fact. The bidders were first advised of the change at the same time as I answered a parliamentary question, on 19 June, specifying the problem and identifying the solution. That was at exactly the same time as the House was informed. I shall certainly re-examine the point to ensure that the information I am now providing on the basis of my recollection and brief notes is correct.
Fifthly, the right hon. Member asked whether the residual HMSO can comply with the 1946 Act, unamended. The Government legal advice that I have is that, by ensuring that the Queen's printer has an additional 16 staff and by leasing assets owned by others—a possible privatised stationery office—the Queen's printer could be acting in accordance with the 1946 Act by using the printing presses of Sovereign Press at night. That is why I argued that a residual HMSO could meet the requirements of the 1946 Act, unamended.
Finally on the questions of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, perhaps I can be positive and constructive and announce—although you asked me not to talk about privatisation, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall not—that, in response to his perfectly fair point about the timing of privatisation, I should like to meet the trade unions before a preferred bidder is selected. I should like to listen to their concerns, as raised by the right hon. Gentleman—which I shall not seek to answer now—about location and the continuation of certain printing plants, and their views about the vires, standing stability and future plans of the shortlist. I give the right hon. Gentleman, and through him the trade unions, that assurance. I look forward to that meeting.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) asked whether an amendment was needed to make all deregulation orders valid. Of course the answer to that question is that deregulation orders are statutory instruments. Therefore, I am happy to confirm to him that they would be covered, even those issued—there are no more than a couple of dozen, but the rate is improving—since the 1994 Act came into force. But, of course, that was before the Bill was published.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) asked why the practice remained undiscovered for 30 years. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) also asked that question, among others—which I shall try to answer in a moment. I do not have a convincing answer. I suspect that the increase in the volume of secondary legislation after the war sensibly caused HMSO to concentrate on contracting out to save money for the taxpayer.
Management must have believed, as most reasonable people would have done, that—as the law permitted contracting-out work for Acts of Parliament and other

public sector work—it was perfectly in order and sensible for them to assume that statutory instruments could also be contracted out. Clearly no one went back to check the fine print of the law; that has finally occurred—at a very late stage—only because of the continual rechecking required by Government counsel before the privatisation of HMSO.

Mr. Steen: The Chancellor has explained very well the reasons why the Bill is necessary. Will he tell the House what would happen if there were a Division on the Bill, the Government were defeated and the Bill did not make progress?

Mr. Freeman: The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland made it clear that the Opposition also believe in good government. The Bill itself is not the issue, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance on that score.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey asked three questions. The first related to the procedure for statutory instruments subject to the negative resolution—they come into operation, whether or not there is a debate. If there is a successful prayer against a statutory instrument, it is revoked, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done in the interim. That is provided for in section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. We have been operating according to these principles for 50 years. It is always open to any political party to suggest a change, but they are the rules. If an instrument has to be approved in draft—under the affirmative resolution—it cannot be made without the necessary affirmative resolution.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am not trying to trap the right hon. Gentleman, but does he agree that, to the outside world, it must seem nonsense that legislation comes into force, we then debate whether we want it and, if we throw it out it, it disappears although it was law for the period between its coming into force and our debating it? That must be bad practice and should be improved, if only to give the public the certainty that something becomes law once the House agrees it and not before.

Mr. Freeman: Labour and Conservative Governments since the war have resisted amendments moved in Committee to strike out the negative and insert the affirmative when it comes to order-making powers under primary legislation. There is always a battle between the legislature and the Executive, and that battle will continue for a long time. It is appropriate always to focus on the merits of the argument in a particular case.
Secondly, I cannot say how many Acts passed since 1979 have involved retrospection, other than the War Crimes Act 1991. However, I shall write to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey on that matter.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked why the Bill was called the Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill rather than the Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill. I suspect that it has something to do with the long title and that the hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 235.

Division No. 169]
[5.41 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Garrett, John


Ainger, Nick
George, Bruce


Ainsworth, Robert (CoVtry NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Allen, Graham
Golding, Mrs Llin


Alton, David
Gordon, Mildred


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Graham, Thomas


Armstrong, Hilary
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Ashton, Joe
Grocott, Bruce


Austin-Walker, John
Gunnell, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hain, Peter


Barnes, Harry
Hall, Mike


Barron, Kevin
Hanson, David


Battle, John
Hardy, Peter


Bayley, Hugh
Heppell, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Beggs, Roy
Hodge, Margaret


Bell, Stuart
Hoey, Kate


Bermingham, Gerald
Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)


Berry, Roger
Hood, Jimmy


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Hoon, Geoffrey


Bradley, Keith
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hutton, John


Byers, Stephen
Illsley, Eric


Caborn, Richard
Ingram, Adam


Callaghan, Jim
Jamieson, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Keen, Alan


Cann, Jamie
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Khabra, Piara S


Clapham, Michael
Kilfoyle, Peter


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clelland, David
Llwyd, Elfyn


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Loyden, Eddie


Coffey, Ann
McAllion, John


Cohen, Harry
Macdonald, Calum


Connarty, Michael
McFall, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McKelvey, William


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Corbett, Robin
McLeish, Henry


Corbyn, Jeremy
McWilliam, John


Corston, Jean
Madden, Max


Cousins, Jim
Mahon, Alice


Cox, Tom
Mandelson, Peter


Cummings, John
Marek, Dr John


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cunningham, Roseanna
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Dafis, Cynog
Martlew, Eric


Davidson, Ian
Meale, Alan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Michael, Alun


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Denham, John
Milbum, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Miller, Andrew


Dixon, Don
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Dobson, Frank
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Donohoe, Brian H
Morgan, Rhodri


Dowd, Jim
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Eastham, Ken
Mowlam, Marjorie


Etherington, Bill
Mudie, George


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mullin, Chris


Faulds, Andrew
Murphy, Paul


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Brien, William (Notmanton)


Flynn, Paul
Olner, Bill


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
O'Neill, Martin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foulkes, George
Pickthall, Colin


Fyfe, Maria
Pike, Peter L


Galloway, George
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)





Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Primarolo, Dawn
Stevenson, George


Purchase, Ken
Stott, Roger


Quin, Ms Joyce
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Radice, Giles
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Reid, Dr John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Touhig, Don


Rogers, Allan
Trickett, Jon


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dennis


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rowlands, Ted
Watson, Mike


Salmond, Alex
Welsh, Andrew


Sheerman, Barry
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Short, Clare
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Simpson, Alan
Wilson, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wright, Dr Tony


Smyth, The Reverend Martin



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spellar, John
Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Mr. Greg Pope.


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Day, Stephen


Amess, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Devlin, Tim


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Dover, Den


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Duncan, Alan


Baldry, Tony
Duncan Smith, Iain


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dykes, Hugh


Bates, Michael
Elletson, Harold


Batiste, Spencer
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Booth, Hartley
Evennett, David


Boswell, Tim
Faber, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fabricant, Michael


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowis, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fishburn, Dudley


Brazier, Julian
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Sir Graham
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forth, Eric


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
French, Douglas


Butcher, John
Fry, Sir Peter


Butler, Peter
Gale, Roger


Butterfill, John
Gallie, Phil


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gardiner, Sir George


Carttiss, Michael
Garnier, Edward


Cash, William
Gill, Christopher


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gillan, Cheryl


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Clappison, James
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gorst, Sir John


Coe, Sebastian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Colvin, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Congdon, David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Conway, Derek
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Couchman, James
Hannam, Sir John


Cran, James
Hargreaves, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan






Hawkins, Nick
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hawksley, Warren
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Madel, Sir David


Heald, Oliver
Malone, Gerald


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Mans, Keith


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Marland, Paul


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Marlow, Tony


Hill, Sr James (Southampton Test)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Horam, John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mates, Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Mills, Iain


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hunter, Andrew
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Jack, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Jenkin, Bernard
Nicholls, Patrick


Jessel, Toby
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Norris, Steve


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Oppenheim, Phillip


King, Rt Hon Tom
Ottaway, Richard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Paice, James


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Pawsey, James


Knox, Sir David
Pickles, Eric


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Powell, William (Corby)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Rathbone, Tim


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Leigh, Edward
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Richards, Rod


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Riddick, Graham


Lidington, David
Robathan, Andrew


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Lord, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Luff, Peter
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sackville, Tom


MacKay, Andrew
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Shaw, David (Dover)





Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Trotter, Neville


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sims, Sir Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spencer, Sir Derek
Walden, George


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spink, Dr Robert
Waller, Gary


Sproat, Iain
Ward, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waterson, Nigel


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stewart, Allan
Wells, Bowen


Streeter, Gary
Whitney, Ray


Sweeney, Walter
Whittingdale, John


Sykes, John
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. Roger Knapman.


Tracey, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills),
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Wood.

Question agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Social Security (Overpayments) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill arises because of a decision by Mr. Mesher, one of the social security commissioners, in a case numbered CIS 451/1995. The commissioner held that there was a need, where we review benefit because of a lie or concealment as to true circumstances, for the official then and there to determine the amount of overpayment. We are advised that this is correct as a matter of statutory interpretation of section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which uses wording that has been in legislation since 1989. However, the consequences of that statutory construction, in terms of sound administration, are extremely serious.
What in practice happens is that when a fraud has been discovered, the local office dealing with the customer holds an interview and the truth comes out. The first decision that has to be made is to correct the benefit in payment for the future. That is the review. There are, of course, circumstances in which a spouse's earnings are declared and are found to be slightly less, so benefit goes on being paid. The situation must be put right at once in the interests of the customer and of the taxpayer, because we would not wish to go on paying benefit at a higher rate than should be paid.
At present, a specialist unit—or units—investigates subsequently exactly what has gone wrong. Classically, it may come out that somebody has been working, but there is an issue as to how much has been earned over what period. When that has been properly and fully investigated, the specialist unit determines the second decision: how much should be recovered and in respect of what period. That has been the practice of the Benefits Agency and of the Department of Social Security before it.
The effect of the decision is that that practice cannot continue. The two decisions—to review and correct the benefit and to determine the amount of overpayment to be recovered—must be determined by the same official at the same time. We have carefully considered whether it could be done if, for example, we were to throw means, resources and people at it. In practice, it cannot sensibly be done. We would have to take those cases off the main income support computer system and deal with them clerically. That would involve training staff. The House will appreciate that the main computer system deals automatically with matters such as direct payments, so accuracy would be bound to suffer. At the same time, we would have to upgrade the computer system to deal with everything at once.
All that would incur expenses—without the Bill, we would have to meet them—of about £30 million this year and £25 million thereafter. Even if we decided on that course of action, a new system could not be put in place immediately. It would take about nine months to set up. What would happen in the meantime until a new system consistent with the commissioner's decision had come into general operation? Adjudicating officers would have to continue reviewing benefit and deciding what benefits should be paid in future, but because they would no longer

be in a position to make an immediate decision about the recovery of overpayment, that decision could not be made immediately and the amount lost would accordingly be irrecoverable at any stage by any means. In the process of implementing that administrative change, some £100 million in benefit would be irrecoverably lost.
It is not just an issue of whether we can operate according to the decision of the commissioner as a matter of practical common sense; we have decided that it would be wrong in principle and as a matter of sound administration. In cases of fraud, it is right and proper that the Benefits Agency should have the opportunity to investigate exactly how long that fraud has been going on and how much money is involved. That cannot be done immediately, as it may take a considerable time to establish all the facts.
We have concluded that two separate decisions are necessary—a review of the benefits to be paid in future and a later decision on the extent of the recovery of overpayment. Both decisions are taken by adjudicating officers whose determinations are appealable.
I should stress that we are discussing benefit repayment when people have lied to the Benefits Agency about their circumstances or concealed the truth. In its paperwork—order books, giro cheques and leaflets—the Benefits Agency takes great pains to explain to people that they have a duty to inform the agency of changes of circumstances as they occur.
As a matter of statutory construction I am advised that the commissioner is correct, but in practical terms it is not a satisfactory state in which to leave the law. How 1 aw and common sense became separated is, I regret to say, a matter of mystery.

Mr. Robert Jackson: That is not uncommon.

Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend says, it is not uncommon.
I have asked for inquiries to be made into the history of the matter. It appears that the crucial wording on which the commissioner made his decision was incorporated into the 1989 legislation by way of an amendment. The amendment was not debated and the notes on clauses are silent, so precisely how that happened is unclear.
In addition, Mr. Mesher, the learned commissioner who took the decision, has written a valuable textbook on income-related benefits, but according to the 1995 edition he clearly had not contemplated in his role of author that the problem had always been in the legislation. So it was not merely the Government and their advisers who failed to spot that point. Indeed, that is to the credit of the Department, as it appears that one of the Department's officials—an independent adjudicating officer—spotted the point and argued it for the benefit of a claimant, and the commissioner agreed with him.
I am grateful for the informal notice from the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) that the Opposition agree that the Bill is a practical and sensible way to put matters right.
The Bill is extremely short. Clause 1 deals with Great Britain. It simply makes it clear that the decision to review and recover may be made at separate times by different people. Of course I should stress that both the decisions are appealable.
Clause 2 deals with Northern Ireland, where the legislation that creates the difficulty has the identical wording to that for Great Britain, so we need to make provision for Northern Ireland. Clause 3, with that style of parliamentary draftsmen, explains that clause 1 applies to Great Britain and clause 2 to Northern Ireland. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Keith Bradley: I am grateful to the Minister for providing such a detailed explanation of a complicated judgment. I do not intend to delay the House by debating it at length or in detail. I also thank him for sending me a summary of leading counsel's opinion relating to the Mustard case, which helped us to decide how we should react to the Bill. As a result of both the Minister's explanation and leading counsel's opinion, we take the view that it would be difficult to appeal against a decision by the chief adjudication officer, and that the need for primary legislation is paramount to resolve the difficulty as quickly as possible.
We also support the need to introduce the primary legislation. We agree that, without it, there would be a shortfall in the ability of the Department of Social Security to recover overpayments. We also accept that the potential loss would be about £100 million over the period, or about £8 million a month. Clearly, it is not in anyone's interest to deny the Department's budget such a sum, which can be used for better purposes. On all those grounds, we are facilitating the swift passage of the primary legislation tonight.
We also understand that, as a result of the Mustard case, there would be immense difficulties in undertaking the administrative tasks associated with changing the benefit and calculating the overpayment simultaneously. We accept that further inquiries may be needed to ensure that all the evidence is available to the Department and to the overpayments section to ensure that the overpayment calculation is correct. It is in the interests of not only the Department but of claimants to ensure that all the evidence that they may want is available when the review takes place and the decision on the amount of overpayment is taken.
The Opposition also accept the argument that staff who deal with entitlement to benefit and calculation of benefit rates are not trained in the same way as those who are involved in overpayments. Although it could be argued that more comprehensive training of all staff is desirable, we recognise that such tasks are specialised. We accept that the two decisions should be separated and that the administrative arrangements currently in place to facilitate that should be continued.
We also accept that computer arrangements are not in place to enable both decisions to be taken simultaneously. That could crucially affect the accuracy of the changes to the benefit rate and overpayment, which also supports the argument for the Bill passing all its stages today.
I am not so persuaded by the argument that, if the Bill were not passed, the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance could be delayed, but I shall not pursue that point. I merely ask the Minister to update the House on the introduction of the JSA. Is it on course to be introduced in October, as the Government envisage?
I also welcome the Minister's assurance that, although the Bill will separate the two actions—the action to change the benefit rate and the subsequent action to assess the amount of overpayment—claimants will still be able to appeal against them. That is important in terms of equity for the Department and the claimant, and it ensures that there is no reduction in the rights of claimants to challenge decisions on benefit rates and the amount of overpayment.
I shall probe a little further in Committee on a number of points in relation to appeals and the way in which overpayments are recovered, but it is not the Labour party's intention to oppose the Bill's Second Reading.

Ms Liz Lynne: I shall not detain the House for long. The Bill is minor and technical and extremely necessary to claw back the money that has been obtained through fraudulent claims or by people misrepresenting the facts.
Although I cannot criticise the Bill, we must find out what will happen when overpayments have resulted mainly from official error. I should like some clarification on that. I do not honestly believe that such money should be taken back because, obviously, if somebody gets a giro cheque through the door, they will spend it. Since they have not fraudulently claimed or misrepresented the facts in their opinion, they will obviously believe that they are entitled to that money. I should like the Minister to confirm that he does not expect that money to be clawed back from genuine claimants.
While we are talking about overpayments, I should also like the Minister to address the fact that the Department of Social Security has overpaid income support by £540 million in the past year alone, mainly because of official error. I should be grateful if, when he replies, he would say what action is being taken to ensure that overpayments do not continue.
The Benefits Agency report for 1994–95 about the accuracy of income support payments makes very depressing reading. I understand that accuracy is getting worse. In 1991–92, 95.7 per cent. of payments were accurate, but, in 1994–95, 86.6 per cent. were accurate. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that that does not continue? It is not surprising that the National Audit Office has highlighted the poor performance and the difference between different benefit offices across the country.
However, as I said, the Bill is necessary to correct something that was wrong in the first place.

Mr. Roger Evans: By leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to thank the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) for their welcome for the Bill. I shall deal quickly with the four points that have been put to me.
I confirm to the hon. Member for Withington that the jobseeker's allowance is on course to be delivered properly in October. I can also confirm that claimants can appeal against the decision to review and the later decision to recover overpayments.
I should explain to the hon. Member for Rochdale that overpayment because of official error is a topic distinct from the subject of the Bill. I shall explain why in a moment. The important thing is that section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 concerns overpayments that have been caused—this is crucial—by misrepresentation, a positive act that is fraudulent or a failure to disclose when there is a duty to disclose.
Under the section 71 mechanism, which we are putting right in the Bill, there must be some form of culpability on the part of the claimant—he must have misled us or failed to tell us something that he ought to have done. That is distinct from when, because of official error, more money is sometimes paid than ought to have been paid. There is a discretionary scheme to compensate in circumstances of official error, when it may be necessary to satisfy the Benefits Agency that an official error has been made and, as a consequence, loss has been suffered.

Ms Lynne: I understand that the Bill is very tightly drawn, but I was hoping that the Minister would state categorically that, if overpayment was due to official error, the money would not be clawed back.

Mr. Evans: As a general proposition, that is far too wide. I suppose that some culpability on the part of the claimant and an official error could occur at the same time. To operate the Bill's section 71 mechanism, overpayment must be caused by misrepresentation or the failure to disclose; so, we are talking about something very different. Of course, when official error occurs, it is obviously important that people could be misled by a mistake by the Benefits Agency. The scheme to compensate in such circumstances bears all circumstances in mind, including official error.
The other point that the hon. Member for Rochdale put to me concerned errors in income support. Although that is a much wider topic than the Bill, I should stress that the change programme that we are considering is designed to address such concerns, which we accept merit serious debate. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills),
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Question agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

Clause 1

RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENTS OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT: AMENDMENTS

Mr. Bradley: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 7, at end insert—

'(1A) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) A person shall only be taken to have failed to disclose a material fact within subsection (1) if

(a) he knew the fact in question; and

(b) it was reasonable in all the circumstances (including but not limited to his mental state) for disclosure of the fact to be expected of him

whether or not the failure also constitutes a misrepresentation of a material fact within subsection (1).".'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 7, at end insert—
'(1A) At the end of subsection (1), there shall be inserted "; so however that, in a case where the misrepresentation or failure in question was not fraudulent, or negligent, the Secretary of State shall only be entitled to recover the amount which is referable to the 12 months immediately preceding the determination".'.
There is a slight printing error in amendment No. 4 to which I ought to draw the attention of the House. The words "or negligent" should have been deleted.

Mr. Bradley: Thank you, Dame Janet; I am grateful for your clarification of the fact that the words "or negligent" should have been removed from amendment No. 4.
The main purpose of amendment No. 3 is to reverse the effect of the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Jones v. Chief Adjudication Officer in 1993. The background to that decision is that there are two situations in which a claimant may have to repay an overpayment of benefit under section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
The first arises when a claimant has misrepresented a material fact; the second when he has failed to disclose a material fact. Case law has held that the threshold for the Department is lower for the misrepresentation limb than for the failure to disclose limb. In essence, all that the Department has to prove is that there has been a misrepresentation, and that the claimant knew that the misrepresentation caused the overpayment in question. Whether the claimant knew the fact in question is immaterial, and so is the reasonableness of his behaviour. The test is one of strict, if not absolute, liability.
However, the failure to disclose limb provides some limited protection for claimants. The case law, which largely draws on insurance case law, has held both that the claimant must know the fact in question, and that disclosure of it must have been reasonably expected in the circumstances. In other words, a claimant cannot disclose a fact that he does not know, and should not be penalised for not having disclosed a fact that a reasonable person would not think had any impact on his benefit entitlement.
In the Jones case, the claimant had signed the standard form giro declaration to the effect that he had correctly reported all the facts that might affect his benefit entitlement. The Department of Social Security argued that the declaration constituted a representation, so that if the claimant had not reported or disclosed all material facts he was guilty of a misrepresentation.
Consequently, whether the claimant knew the fact, and whether disclosure was reasonably to be expected in the cir-cumstances, was irrelevant. In other words, the declaration converted what would otherwise have been a failure to disclose into a misrepresentation too, so the protection associated with failure to disclose was thereby lost.
The majority in the case accepted that argument in part. It was agreed that there was a conversion, and it was said that although there was a reasonableness in the claimant's actions, that was irrelevant. However, the claimant did have to know the fact in question.
In a later case, Franklin v. Chief Adjudication Officer, in 1995, the Department argued that knowledge in itself was also irrelevant in conversion cases. That argument was decisively and unanimously rejected by the Court of Appeal. There are suggestions both in the Franklin case and in the minority judgment in the Jones case that the giro declaration may be unlawful, given that it has the consequence found by the majority in the Jones case.
The reference to the claimant's mental state is designed to reverse the effect of a commissioner's decision, CA/303/92, that mental capacity is relevant to the question only when the claimant knew the fact in question, and not to the reasonableness or otherwise of disclosure. That inevitably brings about injustice for an especially vulnerable group.
Amendment No. 3 therefore seeks to do three things. First, it seeks to confirm that knowledge is an essential ingredient in all failure to disclose cases. Secondly, it is intended to restore the law on the reasonableness of the claimant's behaviour to the pre-Jones position, even in conversion cases. Thirdly, it would stipulate that, in the consideration of whether disclosure was reasonably to be expected, account should be taken of the claimant's mental state.
The amendments represent a modest proposal. With the possible exception of amendment No. 3, they would simply restore the law to what everyone thought it was until 1993, and reintroduce some fairness into an otherwise harsh overpayments regime.
Amendment No. 4, too, is intended to introduce some equity into the overpayments regime. Where a claimant has acted innocently, it seems unfair that he should have to repay benefit overpaid over what may have been a very long period. Inevitably that can cause hardship, especially if the claimant remains on benefit.
Benefits law is extremely complicated; I think that everyone in the House accepts that. So long as a claimant acts in good faith and does his best to give the Department the information that it needs, there should at least be a cap on his overpayment liability. When a claimant is wrongly denied benefit, he can usually be paid arrears dating back only 12 months. The amendment simply provides some balance between the claimant and the Department in terms of benefit decisions later found to be wrong.
In income tax law there is a limit on the period during which the Revenue can recover underpayments of tax in non-fraud cases. Broadly, that limit is six years. We are trying to probe the Government and suggest that some consideration be given to the issues surrounding the Jones and Franklin cases. They should consider equity in connection with overpayment, and impose some cap where it is absolutely clear that the claimant was not at fault in respect of the information that was given and that subsequently led to overpayment recovery by the Department.
I hope that the Minister will consider the amendments sympathetically and throw some light on the Government's thinking and attitude to the issues raised both by the Jones case and by amendment No. 4. I hope that we will be able to have a meeting of minds concerning the way in which overpayments should be considered in future.

Mr. Roger Evans: The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) has raised important points on

amendment No. 3 in respect of the Jones case and the Franklin case, both of which he mentioned. This is not an easy area. It is important that the law must not be over-complex such that it cannot be administered or understood properly, but it must be fair. One of the judges was greatly concerned to prevent the sophistications of marine insurance law policies—in that area the details are spelt out at great length both in statute and in case law—from being imported into what should be a relatively simple, fair and straightforward social security regime.
I understand that there is a difficulty, but the fundamental distinction is between doing something positive—making a misrepresentation—and doing nothing, which is failure to disclose. The way in which the law has always worked is that, if someone does something positive, they are much more likely to be liable than if the law imposes a duty to do something yet they do nothing. In a sense, in omission cases, we are really talking about the extent of the duty at the same time as we discuss the failure to comply with it.
The position is indeed as the hon. Gentleman described it. In failure to disclose cases, no obligation can be imposed to disclose something that a person does not know. That does not make moral, legal or practical sense. There must also be some form of moral or legal obligation that says that people must explain or tell the fact that they are obliged to disclose. Otherwise, the whole thing would be nonsense.
As the hon. Gentleman explained, in cases of mental incapacity, illiteracy or educational or linguistic difficulties, case law is consistent on failure to disclose. In those circumstances—I suppose that this is really a doctrine of equity—there is no conscionable basis on which the duty can be imposed, and there can therefore be no breach of such a duty. That is fairly well-established law that applies not only to social security arrangements, but generally. There must be a moral or legal obligation for people to disclose before they can be blamed for not doing so, but it is traditionally different in a case where someone signs a piece of paper and states something positive.
Someone can tell a lie—that is what a misrepresentation must be—that is deliberate, and that is normally termed a fraudulent misrepresentation. Sometimes there is a halfway house where they ought to have taken care, which is described as a negligent misrepresentation. There can also be a reckless misrepresentation, which is normally regarded in the same way as an intentional misrepresentation. Furthermore, they can simply make a blunder, which is generally termed an innocent misrepresentation.
The traditional view is that, if someone does something positive, they must take the consequences upon themselves. If they are foolish enough to put their name to a piece of paper indicating something wrong, they must ordinarily be expected to take the consequences. That is the ordinary way in which contracts and other arrangements work.
The difference with social security arrangements was rightly pointed out by the hon. Member for Withington, and comes from the nature of the wording on the various forms, which he described as a form of conversion. I would not go along with that terminology, but I see what he is saying. The hon. Gentleman is, in effect, complaining that some of the statements on the forms amplify a failure to disclose into a positive statement and therefore that it is unfair to deal so


severely with the particular claimant. That is the rub of the complaint. I can see the force of that argument, and I undertake that we will have a look at the forms to see whether that aspect needs further thought and consideration.
I am not attracted to the proposition of reversing the case law, which the hon. Member suggested. Unless the case has arisen out of a particular complication in the forms, there is a well-established and clear-cut difference between doing something positive—a misrepresentation—and doing something negative, or failing to do something, where there are considerable protections.
I should stress that we should be careful in looking at section 71 and considering misrepresentations. These have to be proved, and the burden of proof is on the Department and on the adjudicating officer. There must be material fact, not just any fact. A mistake of law, for example, is not a misrepresentation for this purpose—the classic one being, "I am entitled to the above sum." That is not a statement of fact—it is a statement of opinion as to the law. If somebody signs up to that, the Department cannot recover.
6.30 pm
There must be a causal link between what has been said that is wrong and the payment of benefit, as it cannot just have happened that the Department has paid out in any event. There are considerable difficulties of proof in the Department's way—as there are normally in contractual cases of misrepresentation—and these can operate as safeguards.
I shall, perhaps, conclude my remarks, Dame Janet—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

Mr. Evans: My apologies. I had not looked in the direction of the Chair.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not have heard Madam Speaker earlier in the week ask all Ministers and hon. Members to address the Chair.

Mr. Evans: I apologise, Mr. Morris. I was addressing the Chair, but I had not, perchance, looked upon it for a moment in error. That is my fault, for which I apologise.
We will look at the forms again, but I am not attracted to altering what appears to be a well-established and clear-cut distinction that is probably well-founded in practice. It may have been confused by the so-called conversion. If so, I am happy to look at the matter again. I invite the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment to a Division
Before I conclude, I should deal also with amendment No. 4. The hon. Gentleman is again trying to separate different kinds of class of misrepresentation. He is saying that there should be no limit if fraudulent behaviour is proved, but that the treatment should be different if the behaviour is less than fraudulent. The word "negligent" has been added to the amendment, and that is a difficulty for the hon. Gentleman.
There is an element of culpability when someone puts their name to a form and signs something that is wrong, and it is asking too much of the Department to examine

minutely the conscience and mind of the person who has done it to discover whether the act is wholly innocent, in some intermediate category or culpable fraud. If someone puts their signature to something or says something, they ought to take the consequences—the consequences of such an act being that the taxpayer is paying benefit that should not be paid. I am not attracted to amendment No. 4.

Ms Lynne: The Minister has answered many of my queries, particularly those that related to amendment No. 3. I am grateful that he will look at the forms, because—as he no doubt realises—some of them are a minefield. A person should not be penalised for signing a form when he or she does not realise that the information asked for was relevant. In addition, I hope that the Minister will look again at someone who has signed a form with regard to his or her mental state.

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed response to amendment No. 3. These are complicated matters, and it is helpful when the Government put on record their interpretation of the judgments so that advocates can look carefully at the words and see how they are being followed in practice by the Department. I am also grateful that the Minister said that he was prepared to look again at the forms, as that is the point at which claimants provide the information. Enabling the forms to be as simple and as certain as possible is important, as is the way in which information is presented to the Department. That may overcome some of the problems that some claimants have experienced when they have found that the information has led subsequently to a request for overpayment.
On amendment No. 4, I accept the Minister's arguments about fraudulent behaviour on which, as he rightly said, I wanted to concentrate. However, the area of negligence needs further debate, but it was not my intention to have that debate tonight. Rather, I wanted to concentrate on the more simple arguments about fraud. While I understand the Government's argument on that, I was not clear on the Minister's response on the point of equity regarding recovery of overpayments within a limited period., as against the entitlement to benefit on arrears.

Mr. Evans: The difference with amendment No. 4 is that one can have—to use words rather loosely—a fraudulent non-disclosure of the most blatant variety, but the amendment bites only on fraud that is positive. One would have thought that, in moral terms, a deliberate concealment fraud ought to be treated in the same way. The difficulty for the Department is where it draws the line in these cases. Surely the money has been wrongly paid as a result of something that has been done or undone by the claimant, and the Department should have it back.

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful for the Minister's further comments. I do not want to labour the points about the moral entitlement to benefit against the moral requirement on the Department to recover overpayments. Clearly we support the recovery of overpayments, but we want to ensure that all claimants are treated fairly regarding their entitlement to benefit. I do not wish to labour the point further, and I am grateful for the concession that the Minister has give to look at the forms. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Bradley: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 22, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 26, at end insert—
'(5B) For the avoidance of doubt, on a review of, or appeal against, a determination that an amount is recoverable made later than the appeal or review referred to in subsection (5A), an adjudication officer or, as the case may be, a social security appeal tribunal shall consider whether there existed grounds for the reversal or variation referred to in that subsection.'.

Mr. Bradley: This, too, is a short amendment and I shall not delay the House with too long an explanation. The purpose of the amendment is to meet the concerns expressed by Commissioner Mesher at the end of paragraph 10 of the Mustard case, where he said:
Requiring the decision on recoverability to be made in the course of the review decision relating to the period of the alleged overpayment…means that an appeal against the recoverability decision encompasses an examination of the propriety of the review decision".
The amendment would ensure that the propriety of the review decision would fall for consideration on a challenge to a recoverability decision. I hope that that is clear. I also hope that the Minister's previous commitments on appeals against decisions are already encompassed in the Bill. Through this brief amendment, we seek further clarification and certainty on that matter.

Mr. Roger Evans: The argument has moved on since Commissioner Mesher's decision because of the terms in which the Bill is drafted. Commissioner Mesher was understandably worried—the force of the argument is clear—that, if everything is not done at the same time, one might be prejudiced by a later decision.
The way that it works is this: we have separated the two decisions and there is a right of appeal against each. If the half-truth comes out at the beginning of the process—if there is a review, but it is not accurate because for one reason or another either side does not know—the claimant has a right of appeal against the first decision. Let us suppose, however, that it is not right—perhaps there has been an argument, or facts have emerged during the following month or so. There will be a second review of the original review decision, and that also will be appealable.
In effect, if someone is shocked by a thumping great bill some months later, when the overpayment decision is made, there may well be grounds for review if there is a basis of fact that has developed or moved on, and there can, of course, be a further appeal on the second review.
The matter is dealt with in that fashion in the Bill, and I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.

Mr. Bradley: I thank the Minister for that explanation. As he rightly says, the Bill has been framed to ensure that

there can be appeals at each of the stages. The purpose of the amendment was to obtain the assurance from the Minister that that is the case, so that the claimant is protected at each stage if information can subsequently be produced to enable an appeal. With that further assurance from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Bill reported, without amendment.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With the leave of the House, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (SCOTLAND)

That the Special Grant Report on Community Care Special Grant and Supplementary Mismatch Scheme Grant for 1996–97, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.

LANDFILL TAX

That the Landfill Tax (Qualifying Material) Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1528), dated 12th June 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION

That the draft European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox]

Question agreed to.

DEREGULATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the motions relating to deregulation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

That the draft Deregulation (Building) (Initial Notices and Final Certificates) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.

That the draft Deregulation (Wireless Telegraphy) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 4th June, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Dunblane Snowdrop Petition

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I am pleased to present what has become known as the snowdrop petition—they were the only flowers in bloom on 13 March when 16 children and their teacher were gunned down in central Scotland. The extent to which that tragedy has touched the heart of the nation and of our people can be measured by the fact that some 705,000 people had signed up to the petition by yesterday. It reads:

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House introduce or amend the law relating to the ownership and usage of firearms such that:—
1. All firearms held for recreational purposes for use in authorised sporting clubs to be held securely at such clubs with firing mechanisms removed.
2. The private ownership of handguns be made illegal.
3. Certification of all firearms be subject to stricter control.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Child Labour

Motion made, and question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The subject that I want to raise is child labour and the employment of children in the United Kingdom. I am sure that you will recognise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is an extremely important and sensitive issue, and one that concerns large numbers of people, not just in this country but throughout the world. There is also concern about purchasing products produced by child labour in other countries.
First, I must put it on record that I am the chair of the British committee of the International Campaign Against Child Labour. It is a totally unremunerated position—indeed, it probably costs money, but that is not the point. I should also place on record the thanks of many people for the work done by Anti-Slavery International to expose the problems of child labour in many parts of the world, but also in Britain.
Most members of the public assume that child labour is a problem of the past. They think of children going up chimneys in Oliver Twist, or of Dickensian England. Possibly, they think of those tragic children in southern India, who are weaving carpets for 10 hours a day, or of the bonded labour in Pakistan and so many other places.
It is true that child labour was an enormous problem in Victorian Britain. Indeed, many of the great struggles to develop free state education were conducted in the teeth of opposition from farmers in many parts of the country, who wanted children to work on their farms because they were cheap or virtually free. One of the motivations behind the Burston school strike in Norfolk in the 1920s was that it was in opposition to farmers who wanted children to pick stones off fields rather than attend lessons.
While the problem has changed a great deal, it has not disappeared. There is a secret illegal work force in Britain that deserves to be highlighted. One does not have to go to the third world to find out what is happening. Here in London, children are working illegally. They are doing so obviously, by washing car windscreens and so forth at junctions, but they are also doing so illegally in clothing factories, bakeries and many other places, where they are dreadfully exploited and exposed to extremely dangerous conditions. They are also working as waiters and shop assistants and delivering milk, papers and the like. Those issues have to be brought to the attention of the House, and I will come to some of the things that the Government can and should do about the problem.
In a recent report, a group of psychologists at the university of Paisley, who have done much work on the subject, estimated that from 1.1 million to 1.7 million pupils in the 11 to 15-year-old age group are engaged in employment. That report demonstrates—it is the widest study undertaken to date—that that is not a minority experience for pre-16-year-olds. The group questioned 2,000 pupils in 22 schools in Scotland and the north of England, and found that between 35 and 50 per cent. of the pupils had jobs, and as many as 70 per cent. had had jobs at some time.
Despite the fact that almost all jobs require a child to have a work permit issued by the local education authority, the Paisley study finds that nine out of 10 of the children are employed illegally, and that their average pay is £1.50 an hour. Some earn as little as 50p an hour.
In Britain, particularly in areas of high unemployment, we seem almost to be mirroring what is happening in the third world, where adults cannot gain employment but children can, because their wage rates are so low and they are easier to exploit as a result.
The Paisley study also found that some children started work at about 4 am and worked for several hours before going to school, even though it is illegal for children to work before 7 am. One third of the children interviewed in the Paisley study said that that had happened to them. A total of 20 per cent. of the pupils questioned in Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway worked more than 10 hours a week, although it is illegal for children to do that, starting at the times I have mentioned.
I want to put these problems before the House. The accident and health risks for children are serious, and there is a double bind in this. Not only are children seriously at risk when they are working early in the morning and late at night, but they are also working illegally. Therefore, the employer is unlikely to want to report any accident. They are not covered automatically by health and safety legislation, and are exposed to the most appalling dangers as a result.
A study by the Low Pay Unit found that one in three working children had been involved in accidents of that kind, and that 27 per cent. of children working in the service sector have reported being hurt at some time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has produced a report on child labour. She cited cases of children aged between 12 and 15 who were killed or seriously injured at work. Where prosecutions followed, the fines were often low. Her report cites two cases in which boys of seven and eight were working on a building site, and another in which school-age children were working a fourteen-and-a-half-hour day sorting rags for £1 an hour.
One can see the advantage to the employer of employing children at £1 an hour when he would have to pay considerably more for adults. It underlines the case both for a national minimum wage in this country and for much greater labour regulation, not less. Sadly, in the case of those children, the Health and Safety Executive did not prosecute.
An even more shocking case is that of a Birmingham 15-year-old, Dean Allsop, who died because he wore no mask and was overcome by intoxicating fumes when he fell into a vat of water in a sheet metal finishing factory. Another case is that of the 14-year-old Watford boy who was killed when he fell under the wheels of an oncoming car just yards from the flower stall that he was running. These issues are present in factories, and on building sites, farms and other places around this country.
When one mentions child labour, people usually say that it is all about trying to stop children doing paper rounds, and that such paper rounds do not do them any harm. I did a paper round on a Sunday as an older child. Most children are glad of the money, but when one looks back, one sees that there are serious questions about the safety and exploitation of young children.
The physical damage that can be inflicted is quite serious. In 1988, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, which is affiliated to the Trades Union Congress, exposed the risk of spinal deformity that can be caused to paper boys and girls as a result of carrying heavy loads in poorly designed bags, which push their spines out of alignment. Children's loads are not set by law in the way they are for adult workers.
For example, a 17-year-old postal worker should not be carrying more than 40 lb of mail. Some children delivering papers, particularly Sunday papers which tend to be bulkier than daily papers, are sometimes carrying as much as 70 lb at the start of the paper round. I would consider that heavy for many adults. It would probably be beyond the capability of many hon. Members to carry that weight, yet children are doing that, and the damage caused in the early part of their round is considerable.
Tragically, safety in our society has diminished a great deal over the years. One must have serious regard for the safety of children, particularly in London and the big cities. As somebody who grew up in the country, I find it shocking that one can barely let one's children go out of the front door to go a hundre yards down the road to a shop without being concerned for their safety. Children undertaking paper rounds have been subjected to assault, sexual attack and violence, as well as facing the problems of traffic accidents and general safety.
Earlier this year, a tribunal on the world problem of child labour was held in Mexico. Mike Calvert, who was representing the British committee, presented evidence in which he said:
It is estimated that in Britain 2 million children under school leaving age work for wages of around $1 or $1.30 an hour.
He translated the figure for the tribunal. He went on:
The general demand of British workers is for £4.15 per hour. One then clearly understands that child labour stands as one of the main means to deregulate the labour market and reduce the cost".
We should also remember that, in 1899, the founding conference of the TUC said:
The time has come for the British Empire to stop building itself on children's hearts".
The hearts of children now are those to whom I have referred, who have suffered accident and injury because of excessive work early in the morning and late in the evening.
The TUC has done a great deal of work on this. It is concerned not just for the safety of children, but for the way in which children provide employers with cheap and flexible workers. The TUC document said:
Children provide employers with cheap and flexible workers who often don't know their rights. Children have always worked and there are a huge variety of reasons why. In poorer families the child's wages may be very important to family income—and growing poverty in Britain makes that more likely.
The TUC document goes on to say:
According to the Low Pay Unit, one in three working children have been involved in accidents.
The document also mentions the report produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, and explains the dangers of the weight being carried by children. It goes on to call for legislation and ratification of International Labour Organisation convention 138, which is at the heart of the debate and my arguments.
Convention 138 clearly states that the minimum age for entry into employment should be the age of completion for compulsory education. Exceptionally, a country with insufficient economic and educational development may initially specify 14 years. That could not be said to apply to the United Kingdom. The Government purport to support the work of the ILO on child labour in developing countries, but they reject criticism of their record.
They are firmly opposed to a human rights clause in international trade agreements, which would link access to the global market to effective measures to eliminate bonded child labour. The most serious abuses of working children are generally dealt with under ILO convention 29. The TUC document states the nub of many of the problems.
Although this is a debate about child labour in the United Kingdom, it is difficult to limit it to the United Kingdom, for a number of reasons. As I have mentioned, working children provide a cheap and relatively docile source of labour. It is an advantage to an employer in Britain to be able to employ children, and it is an even bigger advantage in many third-world countries.
In some African countries, over 50 per cent. of children are working. In South America, 5 million children are working, and in Asia an estimated 44 million children are working. The worst offenders are Mali, Burkina Faso, Burundi, East Timor, Uganda, Ethiopia, Senegal, Bangladesh and Nigeria—many of the world's poorest nations.
When workers in Britain legitimately complain about job losses and manufacturers moving overseas, they complain about imported goods being produced by child labour. Those companies alleged to be producing goods by child labour usually say that no children work in their factories. That may well be true of their own factories. The sports shoe manufacturing industry is keen to point out that no children work in its factories. The problem is that it sub-contracts work to outstations which do employ children.
If we are to deal with the problem of child labour, it is not a matter of punishing the children for undertaking the work, or even, in some cases, of punishing the parents, who may be driven by terrible poverty; rather, it is a matter for international regulation and the implementation of the ILO convention.
Last year's Trades Union Congress passed a resolution in support of the ILO convention, and asked Governments to translate into practical actions their commitment to ratify ILO convention 138, which I strongly support. I hope that the British Government are prepared to declare their support for that, and to look more seriously at the regulation of the labour market in order to control the safety of children.
British legislation also creates some problems. When I started researching the issue, I discovered that the Employment of Children Act, a private Member's Bill, was passed by the House in 1973 during the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). That Act has never been put into operation. It sought to regulate child labour, prevent young children from working, and establish various other conditions concerning rest, maximum hours, and so on. It is shocking that such legislation could be passed more than 20 years ago, yet never be put into operation. I hope that the Minister will explain why that has been the case.
The Department of Health issued a consultation document, which I understand attracted a number of responses, although I have no idea exactly how many, which was based on the new EC directive on child labour. Some of those who read that document found it rather disturbing. When I asked a parliamentary question on the subject, I was told that there were no plans to publish the responses to that document. I hope that the Minister will change his mind tonight, and tell us that all the responses will be published. If he does, that will be fine; if not, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the replies were unsympathetic and hostile to the EC directive and the Government's position.
The Guardian, in an article on 22 May this year, said:
Britain has opted out of key provisions of the EU directive, rejecting a 12-hour weekly limit on children's term-time working in favour of a limit of 17 hours for 13 and 14-year-olds and 20 hours for 15-year-olds. Uniquely in Europe, Britain will also exclude 16 and 17-year-olds from any restrictions on the hours they can work.
Many families in my constituency are extremely hard up. They are keen for their children to stay on at school past the age of 16 in order to obtain A-levels, go on to college and so on, but they simply cannot make ends meet. Insufficient money is available through the social security system, and in many cases children work such excessive hours that their studies are damaged. Children under the age of 16 also work more than they should because their parents cannot get work, so they too are part of the problem.
The Government are seeking an opt-out from parts of the EC directive, but even that is limited, because it does not outlaw the employment of children in the way that the ILO convention suggests. As a result, the British position is even worse, because Britain believes that children should be working even longer hours than the EC directive states.
Britain has the beginnings of a serious problem. Child labour is disgraceful. Children should be able to grow up in a happy atmosphere, in which they can learn without the stress of knowing that, after school or early in the morning, they have a job to go to because of their family's poverty. Those things were wrong in the 19th century, as many hon. Members would have said in this Chamber 100 years ago, and they are doubly wrong today, when we have the resources to eliminate child labour altogether.
I conclude by quoting from the Anti-Slavery International appeal for action on child employment in the United Kingdom. It is headed:
The British Government is planning changes to the law affecting the employment of school-age children, which will worsen their school performance and provide cheap labour to businesses trading on a Sunday.
It says:
ASI is concerned that school-age children in the UK are still not adequately protected from exploitation under UK law, and that the Government has not given serious consideration to the impact on children of working long hours while still at school. UK laws on child labour need revision, need to be applied and need to conform with the UK's international commitments. If the current proposals become law many more school-age children in Britain will be working even longer hours during term-time at the expense of their education and childhood.
We have the power to do something about child labour. Legislation exists. We have the ILO convention 138, ratification of which in its entirety would help to eliminate child labour.
When I recently asked the Secretary of State
what actions are being taken by his Department to ensure that children are not working in breach of the current employment law"—
that was a question to the British Government, who are responsible for the enactment of legislation and the protection of British people—the answer took less than one line. It said:
Enforcement of the law in this area is a matter for local authorities."—[Official Report, 26 June 1996; Vol. 280, c. 146.]
Local authorities often lack the resources and expertise to deal with the matter. In some cases, they may lack the will to deal with it. All the battles to develop free education in Britain 100 years ago in the teeth of opposition from employers who were busy exploiting children at the time might be rerun today because some local authorities might not be too keen on investigating clothing companies, newspaper deliveries and other employments in which children are working excessively and in great danger.
Even more shocking is the fact that there is apparently no central collection of statistics showing how many children have suffered from accidents, or of the work done, or not done, by local authorities. The Government have all the appearance of wanting to have nothing to do with the problem. They hope that it will go away, and that someone else will deal with it.
Many people feel angry about the moral situation of children around the world. They refuse to buy goods produced by child labour—not because they want to harm the children or their families, but because they want to make their own statement about the employment of children and the way in which their education suffers.
I am concerned that the education of many children in Britain is being seriously harmed and that many are suffering physically, mentally and educationally as a result of the way in which they are forced to undertake jobs that they should not be doing. It is time that the 1973 legislation was put into operation in its entirety, and that the Government gave legislative approval to the ILO convention to protect children.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I thank the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for introducing the subject of child labour. He may not be wholly surprised to find that I do not agree with everything that he has said, but he raised some important and legitimate concerns for the welfare of children in Britain and abroad. I am not here to answer today for children abroad. I merely say that, if some of the countries to which he referred adopted some of Britain's protective legislation, some of the abuses about which he and I share concern might be prevented.
The hon. Gentleman speaks from a purist and honest point of view, which is that no child should be employed. That is a perfectly fair position to take, but it is not the one that most people in Britain would adopt. He would rule out even the paper round. Children often wish to work, and society in general sees work by children as a normal part of a child's life.
Suitable work undertaken by children in controlled circumstances can be beneficial, for instance by developing in them a sense of their own worth,

by developing the discipline of regular attendance, and through the experience of handling money and forging working relationships, not least with people older than themselves. All that can be beneficial to general development, to the rounding of a child as an individual.
We must be careful not to confuse the common experience of children who work, for example, delivering daily newspapers, with the occasional horror stories that we hear of children being exploited, perhaps in dangerous circumstances, by unscrupulous employers. If that occurred, the hon. Gentleman and I would stand shoulder to shoulder to find ways to prevent it and to bring to justice anyone who had perpetrated it.
Let me make the legal position quite clear. Children are prohibited by statute from working except in strictly controlled circumstances. Apart from the general prohibition on children working in any industrial undertaking, contained in the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920, the basic rules are contained in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which stipulates that no child may work below the age of 13 years before 7 am, during school hours or after 7 pm for more than two hours on any school day or Sunday.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the 1973 private Member's Bill, which, as he rightly said, was passed during a Conservative Government. It was considered by the Labour Government of 1976, but they decided not to implement it in that form and instead decided to go for local government byelaws. Subsequent Governments have followed that route, although we are now looking to see whether they need strengthening as a result of the EU directive.
Most important—this is the crux of the control of children's employment—any employer who wishes to employ a child must register the child with the local education authority and obtain an employment card, which will be issued only when the LEA is satisfied that the job involved is legal in terms of the nature of the task to be performed, the hours of work involved and the times when the task is to be performed. The LEA must also be satisfied that the child is fit to do the work and that his or her education and general well-being will not be put at risk.
The measures that I have described provide a sound legal basis for allowing our children, from a suitable age, to gain valuable experience of work while at the same time protecting their well-being.

Mr. Corbyn: Roughly how many children are registered with local education authorities? What does the Minister's Department think is the rate of non-compliance in that area?

Mr. Bowis: I shall come to that point in a moment. We do not know the number of children who are registered with employment cards, but there is perfectly clear evidence that a large number of children do not use the cards. That is something that local authorities must look at.
There is, however, much good practice. I have seen booklets produced by local authorities of all political persuasions, in all parts of the country—rural and urban—which set out to ensure that local employers are aware of their duties in that regard. I have seen documents produced by those in the newspaper industry to try to ensure that their people are complying. I have no doubt


that debates such as this will also highlight the need to comply. It is not a case of people being exploited or badly treated; it is a case of children who are not being properly employed within the law. That is not acceptable. There is a £1,000 fine for non-compliance, and we must get that across. As we move towards the implementation of the EU directive, we shall have further opportunities to highlight that.
If we hear of instances—sometimes tragic instances, which are rare—where the system has failed, we do not find that a child has come to harm as a result of a deficiency in the current law. I have heard of calls for central Government to do something about the illegal employment of children, usually from people who are a little short on what to do. As I have described, local authorities have considerable powers to control children's employment sensibly. I stress again that they have had such powers since 1933. There is nothing new in the idea of children working or of protecting them while they do so.
We sometimes hear alarmist figures that up to 1.5 million children work illegally—alarmist because the estimate is due not to any widespread exploitation but rather to the fact that relatively few children, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, possess an employment card. Many authorities are taking positive action to tackle that by visiting schools and so on, and I hope that that will continue.
Suggestions have been made—the hon. Gentleman referred to this—that local authorities have not felt able to allocate the necessary resources to control children's employment effectively, and in particular to enforce the employment card system. It is, as the hon. Gentleman will know, for each local authority to decide on its spending priorities and to devote resources as it sees fit to any sector of its responsibilities. It is not a new responsibility; it goes back more than 60 years, and I should have thought that any authority that thought that children were at risk would ensure that such resources as were necessary were allocated to that area.
Some people may think that the current law is out of date. I do not accept that. Detailed controls are contained in local authority byelaws, which local authorities are responsible for keeping up to date. We propose changes, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The directive on the protection of young people at work, which was produced by the EU in June 1994, calls on member states to bring their domestic legislation into line with the terms of the directive, and we are working towards that. We believe, however, that our current system already provides suitable protection. That does not, of course, mean that we shall not comply with the terms of the directive. Of course we shall. I am concerned that, while we make the few changes to the current rules that are required by the directive, we ensure that we are fully up to date, which we need to be to protect our children.
With regard to children under the minimum school leaving age—the cut-off point where the legislation applies—we have the option, and we shall take it, under the directive of not applying the limit of 12 hours a week during term time. We shall retain our current limits of up to a maximum of 17 hours a week for children up to the age of 15, and 20 hours a week for children of 15 or over. There is no objective evidence to support a lower limit. The current limits have been in place for many years, and I am aware of no evidence that they are in any way inappropriate. I am, of course, aware of the research, notably from the university of Paisley, which suggests that

children working more than 10 or perhaps 12 hours a week perform less well academically, but, as the authors of that research are honest enough to acknowledge, no direct causal link has been established.
I should point out that the directive permits children aged 13 and 14 to work up to seven hours a day and 35 hours a week in their school holidays, and children aged 15 or over to work eight hours a day and 40 hours a week. That is far in excess of our current limit of five hours a day and 25 hours a week for 13 and 14-year-olds, and eight hours a day and 35 hours a week for children over 15. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are not moving towards the directive on that. We are retaining our lower limits, which I hope will please him at least. Another important way in which we are already more protective than the directive requires is on the start and finish times. The directive prohibits children from working between 8 pm and 6 am. Current United Kingdom law prohibits work between 7 pm and 7 am. We shall retain our more protective approach.

Mr. Corbyn: If, as the Minister says, the EU directive is rather worse than the British Government's position—I take his point about start and finish times—why on earth did the British Government not veto it when they had the opportunity to do so? They veto lots of other things—why not that?

Mr. Bowis: The veto was not appropriate in that context.

Mr. Bowen Wells (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): There is qualified majority voting.

Mr. Bowis: Indeed. But, in any event, options in the directive gave us the necessary flexibility to continue our current best practice—and I think that we do have best practice, which has been seen to work.
It has been suggested that we are proposing to increase the number of hours for which children may work. That is not so. What we propose is to bring up to date the law governing children's working hours on Sundays. The current two-hour limit is not reasonable in the 1990s: many shops now open on Sundays, and I believe that children should be able to work in those shops if they wish to.
I am conscious, however, that merely increasing the number of hours for which children may work on Sundays could erode their leisure time with their families, or the time in which they must do their homework. That is why our proposals are carefully framed to maintain the current limit on the number of hours that may be worked over the weekend, while providing a choice of when those hours may be worked. I consider that increased flexibility a positive step, and expect it to be particularly welcomed by the various ethnic and religious groups for which Sunday is not a special day.
I believe that experience of suitable work at a suitable age, in strictly controlled circumstances, can be positively beneficial to children.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Is the Minister giving way?

Mr. Corbyn: I thought that the Minister was about to sit down.
I referred to the consultation document sent out by the Department, and the lack of published responses. Are the responses to be published? If so, when?

Mr. Bowis: We shall certainly present our conclusions on the consultation in due course, but we do not propose to publish the details of the letters that we have received. As on other occasions, it was not made clear to those who wrote to us that that might happen, and it is not normal practice, but we shall certainly take into account the views that have been expressed on both sides of the argument.
Local authorities are responsible for ensuring that the law is adhered to. We are working on some minor changes to the current law, both to ensure that it is fully up to date and to comply with the terms of the directive. I believe

that, when local authorities update their byelaws as part of the process, the publicity that that will engender will lead to a greater knowledge of the law, and therefore greater compliance with it.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that we have good law in this country. That law needs to be complied with, and it needs to be publicised on occasion, but sensible working practices for children can be helpful to those children as they develop and grow. It is not a question of supporting families' incomes; it is a question of helping children to grow into responsible citizens. In that spirit, I believe that the steps that we are taking will be helpful.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Seven o'clock.